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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species C (figure 4), including claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species (Species B, figure 3). Therefore, only claims 14-20 are pending for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
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 first to fourth surfaces 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 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 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 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0096780) in view of Robbins et al. (US 2016/0097930).
Regarding claim 14, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 100) discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display panel configured to emit light (The object 100 may be a display panel, for example, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel or an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel; see at least paragraph 0019); and
a first optical wedge (311) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface;
a second optical wedge (411) having a third surface;
a third optical wedge (211) having a fourth surface;
an air gap (between 201, 301, or 401) defined between a portion of the first surface and a portion of the fourth surface;
a reflective polarizer (222) sandwiched between the second surface and the third surface;
a partial reflector (321) layered on the first surface within the air gap; and
a quarter waveplate (421) layered on the partial reflector within the air gap,
wherein the reflective polarizer, the partial reflector, and the quarter waveplate are configured to redirect the light.
Ouderkirk et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 14 above. However, Ouderkirk et al. is silent regarding a second optical wedge having a third surface at the second surface; a third optical wedge having a fourth surface at the first surface. Robbins et al. (figure 3B) teaches a second optical wedge having a third surface at the second surface; a third optical wedge having a fourth surface at the first surface (260, 262, 264, and 266). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surfaces as taught by Robbins et al. in order to achieve an optical system for converting a source of projected light to uniform light for a liquid crystal on silicon microdisplay in a confined space.
Regarding claim 15, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) discloses wherein the reflective polarizer is configured to reflect the light after a total internal reflection of the light at the air gap, the partial reflector is configured to reflect the light after reflection by the reflective polarizer, and the reflective polarizer is configured to transmit the light after reflection by the partial reflector (figure 100).
Regarding claim 16, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) discloses wherein the first surface has a freeform curvature that is rotationally asymmetric.
Regarding claim 17, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) discloses wherein the third optical wedge has a fifth surface opposite the fourth surface, the electronic device further comprising: an additional quarter waveplate layered onto the fifth surface and overlapping the partial reflector; and an absorptive polarizer layered onto the additional quarter waveplate (361 and 363).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0096780) in view of Togino (US 5,517,366).
Regarding claim 18, Ouderkirk et al. (figure 10) discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display panel configured to emit light (The object 100 may be a display panel, for example, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel or an organic light emitting diode (OLED) display panel; see at least paragraph 0019);
a first optical wedge (411);
a second optical wedge (311) having a curved surface separated from the first optical wedge by an air gap; and
a partial reflector (321) layered on the curved surface within the air gap.
Ouderkirk et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 18 above. However, Ouderkirk et al. is silent regarding total internal reflection. Togino (figure 4) teaches a first optical wedge (L) configured to reflect the light twice via total internal reflection; the partial reflector (2, 3) being configured to receive the light after the light has been reflected by the first optical wedge twice via total internal reflection, the partial reflector being configured to reflect the light towards an eye box through the first optical wedge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the surfaces as taught by Togino in order to provide a head-mounted display system which enables observation of an image that is clear as far as the edges of visual field at a wide presentation view angle.
Regarding claim 19, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the eye box has a horizontal dimension and a vertical dimension equal to the horizontal dimension. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the horizontal dimension and vertical dimension of the eyebox equal to each other, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (US 2020/0096780) in view of Togino (US 5,517,366); further in view of McDowall et al. (US 2009/0052838).
Regarding claim 20, Ouderkirk et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 18 above. However, Ouderkirk et al. is silent regarding a switchable shutter. McDowall et al. (figure 1) teaches a switchable shutter (24 and 26; see at least paragraph 0027) overlapping the first and second optical wedges (16, 30), the switchable shutter being configured to transmit light from an external device to the eye box through the first and second optical wedges and the curved surface, and the switchable shutter being synchronized with a display of the external device (see at least paragraph 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the switchable shutter as taught by McDowall et al. in order to provide a method for altering an optical system's configuration without physically moving any of the optics, allowing a compact, durable, quickly adjustable optical package.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights