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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on July 1, 2024 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1, 3, 5 are objected to under CFR 1.84(l, p) - letters, numbers are too small, not clean, black, durable.
Figures 2a, b, c; 4a, b, c are objected to under CFR 1.84(l, p) - letters, numbers, lines are too small, not clean, black, durable.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “overall entrance pupil” (claim 1); “aperture stop” (claim 1); “first lens group” (claim 1); “second lens group” (claim 1); “head mounted display” (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 7), Examiner suggests -- group is closer to the light --
Claim 1 (line 12), Examiner suggest -- located closer to the light --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites a detection lens with first and second groups, the groups having any number of lenses with the specified focal length/magnification ranges which is necessarily a functionally infinite number of optical constructions, however Applicant has disclosed only three (3) species of detection lenses (Figure 1, 3, 5).
As is consistent with the MPEP (2163.II.A.3.a.ii), the written description is satisfied when a representative number of species are disclosed by Applicant (MPEP 2163 - A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG V. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Such three (3) species fall far short of the functionally infinite number of powers, lenses, and combinations thereof to fulfill the focal length and magnification properties.
MPEP 2163 - Satisfactory disclosure of a "representative number" depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the inventor was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. Instead, the disclosure must adequately reflect the structural diversity of the claimed genus, either through the disclosure of sufficient species that are "representative of the full variety or scope of the genus," or by the establishment of "a reasonable structure-function correlation." Such correlations may be established "by the inventor as described in the specification," or they may be "known in the art at the time of the filing date." See AbbVie, 759 F.3d at 1300-01, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790-91 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Claims 2-10 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claim 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “its own aperture stop” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “its”? Also, the claim has not introduced an aperture stop.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the condenser lens” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, prior to this the claims recites “at least one condenser lens” thus what is “the condenser lens” is unclear.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the first lens group and the second lens group have a diameter of less than or equal to 40mm” which is unclear what the diameter is of (MPE P2173.05(b)). Is this the largest lens diameter of any lens of the groups? Is this an average lens diameter? Is this a diameter of something other than a lens? The metes and bounds are unclear since what diameter is to be ≤ 40mm is unclear.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “the first lens group is configured to be able to move as a whole along an axial direction of the detection lens” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, neither the claims nor specification provide any structure/mechanism to permit the first lens group moving. The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what is covered by the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand such function is implicit as any lens group/system can be transported on planet earth.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “a detection method for a head-mounted display…using the detection lens…according to claim 1…” which is a single claim claiming both the apparatus and processing of using (MPEP 2173.05(p)). The metes and bound are unclear since what steps are taken under such use are unclear. Additionally, the subsequent steps do not appear to further limit the device of claim 1 and are unclear if such steps are intended to be a product-by-process (MPEP 2113).
Examiner will understand claim 10 such that so long as the prior art teaches claim 1, the detection lens can be used as per claim 10.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick (US 5,608,564) in view of Lohmann (Scaling Laws for Lens Systems)1.
As to claim 1, Schick teaches a detection lens for a head-mounted display wherein the detection lens is provided with a light incident end (Schick Fig. 3 - 1; Fig. 4 - 1, 61) and is configured for receiving light from the light incident end (Schick Figs. 3, 4);
the detection lens comprises a lens group (Schick Fig. 3 - 1, 2, 3), and an overall entrance pupil of the lens group overlaps with its own aperture stop (Schick Fig. 4 - 61; col. 5:1-5);
the lens group comprises a first lens group (Schick Fig. 3 - 1) and a second lens group (Schick Fig. 3 - 2, 3), the first lens group is close to the light incident end relative to the second lens group (Schick Fig. 3 - 1, 2, 3) an effective focal length of the first lens group ranges from 20mm to 40mm (Schick col. 5:50-60), a magnification of the second lens group ranges from 0.5 to 2 (Schick Fig. 4 - 61, 62, 63; col. 6:11-20 - coincidence of exit pupil (62) of groups 1, 2 and entrance pupil (63) group 3 provides unity (1) magnification);
the first lens group comprises at least one condenser lens (Schick Fig. 3 - lenses of group (1)), the condenser lens is located close to the light incident end in the first lens group (Schick Fig. 3 - 1), and the condenser lens has a positive focal power (Schick Fig. 3 - 1; col. 5:55-58);
the detection lens has an angle of view of less than or equal to 70 degrees (Schick col. 6:1-5 - accepting scan angle of ± 16o = 32o).
While Schick teaches the second lens group has such group focal lengths of 160mm and 40mm (Schick col. 5:55-65) such values represent scaled up/down of the claimed 70mm < f2 < 120mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale up/down the second group focal length, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the focal length(s) since as taught by Lohmann, scaling is trivial (Lohmann Section II).
As to claim 2, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the effective focal length of the first lens group ranges from 23mm to 30mm (Schick col. 5:55-58).
As to claim 3, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the magnification of the second lens group ranges from 0.7 to 1.3 (Schick Fig. 4 - 61, 62, 63; col. 6:11-20 - coincidence of exit pupil (62) of groups 1, 2 and entrance pupil (63) group 3 provides unity (1) magnification).
As to claim 4, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the condenser lens is a crescent-shaped lens (Schick Fig. 3 - 1).
As to claim 5, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the first lens group and the second lens group form a flat-field lens group (Schick col. 4:5-10 - lens being an F-θ lens which is a flat-field lens)2.
As to claim 7, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the first lens group and the second lens group have a diameter of less than or equal to 40mm (Schick col. 6:55-58).
As to claim 8, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick/Lohmann further teaches the effective focal length ranges from 85mm to 110mm (Lohmann Section II).
As to claim 9, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the first lens group is configured to move as a whole along an axial direction of the detection lens (Schick Fig. 3; implicit, such lens can be transported along an axial direction).
As to claim 10, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches using the detection lens of claim 1, aligning an incident end of the detection lens with a head-mounted display to be detected, adjusting, along an axial direction of the detection lens, the light incident end of the detection lens to a position overlapping with an exit pupil projected by the head mounted display to be detected, and acquiring, with the detection lens, an image projected by the head mounted display (Schick Fig. 3, 4).
Claims 1-4, 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng et al. (CN 106338814; herein Chung; text references made to accompanying machine translation).
As to claim 1, Cheng teaches a detection lens for a head-mounted display (Cheng Figs. 1, 2; Table 1) wherein
the detection lens is provided with a light incident end (Cheng Fig. 2 - 1) and is configured for receiving light from the light incident end (Cheng Fig. 2 - 1);
the detection lens comprises a lens group (Cheng Fig. 1 - 2, 3, 4), and an overall entrance pupil of the lens group overlaps with its own aperture (Cheng Fig. 2 - 1; para. [0035]);
the lens group comprises a first lens group (Cheng Fig. 1 - 2; Fig. 2 - 21-24) and a second lens group (Cheng Fig. 1 - 3, 4; Fig. 2 - 31-44), the first lens group is close to the light incident end relative to the second lens group (Cheng Fig. 1 - 2), a magnification of the second lens group ranges from 0.5 to 2 (Cheng para. [0011], [0013], [0038] - as discussed, groups 3, 4 magnify (scale) the focal length of group 2 (the first group) to satisfy f1/f which includes f1 = f and thus magnification of unity (1)) and an effective focal length of the second lens group ranges from 70mm to 120mm (Cheng para. [0046] - focal length group 3 (lenses 31-33) = 82.783mm);
the first lens group comprises at least one condenser lens (Cheng Fig. 2 - 21, 22, 24), the condenser lens is located close to the light incident end in the first lens group (Cheng Fig. 2 - 21), and the condenser lens has a positive focal power (Cheng Fig. 2 - 21), and
the detection lens has an angle of view less than or equal to 70 degrees (Cheng para. [0044] - FOV = 28.28o).
While Cheng’s embodiment teaches the focal length of the first group is 63.323mm, Cheng teaches the system satisfies 0.6 ≤ f1/f ≤ 1.5 (Cheng para. [0011]) and that f = 45.66 (Cheng para. [0044]) and thus 27.4 < f1 < 68.5 which is an overlapping range of and thus prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to satisfy 20 < f1 < 40mm since, as taught by Cheng such features allow for achieving a large field of view, long exit pupil distance, and long working distance (Cheng para. [0010]).
As to claim 2, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches the effective focal length of the first lens group ranges from 23mm to 30mm (Cheng para. [0011], [0044]).
As to claim 3, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches the magnification of the second lens group ranges from 0.7 to 1.3 (Cheng para. [0011], [0013], [0038] - as discussed, groups 3, 4 magnify (scale) the focal length of group 2 to satisfy f1/f which includes f1 = f and thus magnification of unity (1)).
As to claim 4, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches the condenser lens is a crescent-shaped lens (Cheng Fig. 2 - 24).
As to claim 9, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches the first lens group is configured to be able to move as a whole along an axial direction of the detection lens (Cheng Fig. 1 - 2; implicit, such lens can be transported along an axial direction).
As to claim 10, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches aligning an incident end of the detection lens with a head-mounted display to be detected, adjusting, along an axial direction of the detection lens, the light incident end of the detection lens to a position overlapping with an exit pupil projected by the head mounted display to be detected, and acquiring, with the detection lens, an image projected by the head mounted display (Cheng Fig. 1 - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schick in view of Lohmann as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (Double-Gauss Lens)3.
As to claim 6, Schick in view of Lohmann teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Schick further teaches the second lens group has a collimating lens group (Schick Fig. 3 - 2; col. 5:55-60), but doesn’t specify the other group being/including a double-Gauss lens group. In the same field of endeavor Wikipedia teaches double-Gauss lenses. It would have been obvious to include such double-Gauss lens close to the incident light side since, as taught by Wikipedia, such lenses are well known in the art (e.g. 1888) as reducing optical aberrations over large focal planes (Wikipedia).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pang et al. (US 2022/0397744 - Pang).
As to claim 5, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the first lens group and the second lens group form a flat-field lens group. In the same field of endeavor Pang teaches detection lens systems with first group and second group forming a flat-field lens group (Pang Fig. 1A - 112, 114; para. [0025]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a flat-field lens group since, as taught b Pang, such lenses are well known in the art for the purpose of correcting the wavefront curvature (Pang para. [0025]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (Double-Gauss Lens)4.
As to claim 6, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches the second lens group has a collimating lens group (Cheng para. [0046]), but doesn’t specify the second lens group being/including a double-Gauss lens group. In the same field of endeavor Wikipedia teaches double-Gauss lenses. It would have been obvious to include such double-Gauss lens close to the incident light side since, as taught by Wikipedia, such lenses are well known in the art (e.g. 1888) as reducing optical aberrations over large focal planes (Wikipedia).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lohmann (cited above).
As to claim 7, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the first lens group and second lens group have a diameter of less than or equal to 40mm. Such range represents a scaling up/down of the lens of Cheng. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to scale the lens of Cheng to provide diameter(s) < 40mm, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the focal length(s) since as taught by Lohmann, scaling is trivial (Lohmann Section II).
As to claim 8, Cheng teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cheng further teaches the effective focal length of the second group includes 82.783mm (Cheng para. [0046]) which is a scaling of the claimed range 85-110mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to scale the lens of Cheng to provide 85mm < f2 < 110mm, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component. Scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to scale the focal length(s) since as taught by Lohmann, scaling is trivial (Lohmann Section II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Pang et al. (US 12,386,155); Mathieu (US 8,954,388; 2010/0110275); Togino et al. (US 5,448,408); Bougon et al. (US 3,485,547); Zhang (US 2025/0060592); Zhang (US 2025/0093668); Huang et al. (US 2017/0139314); Liang et al. (CN 114089508); Jiang (CN 112857754); Yang et al. (CN 111381370) are cited as additional examples of detection lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 15, 2026
1 Lohmann, Adolf W. “Scaling Laws for Lens Systems.” Applied Optics, vol. 28, no. 23, 1 Dec. 1989, pp. 4996–4998
2 https://www.thorlabs.com/f-theta-lenses-tutorial?tabName=F-Theta%20Tutorial
3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens
4 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-Gauss_lens
Prosecution Insights