CTNF 18/815,033 CTNF 99536 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. The instant application having Application No. 18/815,033 filed on 8/26/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner. Examiner Notes 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. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Wong (US 12099226 A), in view of Ouderkirk (WO 2018116080 A1)(see attached copy), and further in view of Epstein (US 9773847 B2). Instant Application US 12099226 A 1. An optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer, comprising: a pixelated display system adapted to emit a pixelated image ; and a folded optical system disposed between the pixelated display system and the viewer and adapted to receive the emitted pixelated image and form the pixelated virtual image, the pixelated display system and the folded optical system sharing a common reflective polarizer therebetween, the common reflective polarizer adapted to: increase a brightness of the emitted pixelated image by recycling at least a portion of the emitted pixelated image within the pixelated display system, by reflecting at least a portion of the emitted pixelated image having a first polarization state, wherein at least a portion of the reflected pixelated image has a second polarization state orthogonal to the first polarization state and is transmitted by the common reflective polarizer after being reflected by the pixelated display system ; and reflecting at least a portion of the emitted pixelated image that is transmitted by the common reflective polarizer, toward the viewer . 1. An optical system for displaying an image to a viewer, comprising: a pixelated display adapted to emit a pixelated image and comprising a plurality of light- emitting pixels, each light-emitting pixel adapted to emit unpolarized image light; a first optical lens comprising a curved first major surface; a partial reflector disposed on and conforming to a major surface of the first optical lens and having an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a predetermined wavelength range extending at least from about 450 nm to about 600 nm; a first retarder layer disposed between the pixelated display and the partial reflector; a second retarder layer disposed between the first retarder layer and the partial reflector; and a reflective polarizer disposed between the first and second retarder layers and substantially reflecting light having a first polarization state and substantially transmitting light having an orthogonal second polarization state in the predetermined wavelength range, wherein the reflective polarizer is adapted to: increase a brightness of a pixelated image emitted by the pixelated display and displayed to the viewer by recycling at least a portion of unpolarized image light emitted by each light-emitting pixel, by reflecting at least a portion of the emitted light having the first polarization state, wherein at least a portion of the reflected light has the second polarization state and is transmitted by the reflective polarizer after being reflected by the pixelated display ; and receive an image ray reflected by the partial reflector and reflect the received image ray toward the viewer . 4. The optical system of claim 1, wherein the folded optical system further comprises a partial reflector having an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a predetermined wavelength range extending at least from about 450 nm to about 600 nm , the folded optical system folding an optical path of the emitted pixelated image by each of the common reflective polarizer and the partial reflector reflecting the emitted pixelated image at least once within the folded optical system before forming the pixelated virtual image. 1. … a partial reflector disposed on and conforming to a major surface of the first optical lens and having an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a predetermined wavelength range extending at least from about 450 nm to about 600 nm; Regarding claim 1 , Wong teaches most of the limitations of claim 1, however Wong does not disclose a folded optical system disposed between the pixelated display system and the viewer and adapted to receive the emitted pixelated image and form the pixelated virtual image, the pixelated display system and the folded optical system sharing a common reflective polarizer therebetween. Ouderkirk teaches a folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”, Figure 10) disposed between the display system (101 “object”, page 5, paragraph 3 states “The object 101 may be a display panel, for example, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel”, Figure 10) and the viewer (111 “viewer”, Figure 10) and adapted to receive the emitted image (137 “light rays”, page 6, paragraph 2 states “In the illustrated embodiment, light rays 137 emitted by object 101”, Figure 10), the display system (101 “object”) and the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”) sharing a common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”, Figure 10) therebetween (Figure 10). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to utilize the optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer of Wong modified by a folded optical system disposed between the pixelated display system and the viewer and adapted to receive the emitted pixelated image and form the pixelated virtual image, the pixelated display system and the folded optical system sharing a common reflective polarizer therebetween, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to maintain a compact design while providing a wide field of view and low distortion (page 3, paragraph 2). Epstein teaches a pixelated display system (200 “emissive display top surface pixel basis cell”, Figure 2B) adapted to emit a pixelated image (column 11, lines 17-39). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to utilize the optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer of Ouderkirk modified by a pixelated display system adapted to emit a pixelated image and a folded optical system adapted to form the pixelated virtual image, as taught by Epstein, in order to remove image degradation such as ghost images and pixel blur (column 3, line 47 – column 4, line 3). Regarding claim 4 , Wong teaches most of the limitations of claim 4, however Wong does not teach the folded optical system folding an optical path of the emitted pixelated image by each of the common reflective polarizer and the partial reflector reflecting the emitted pixelated image at least once within the folded optical system before forming the pixelated virtual image. Ouderkirk teaches the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”) folding an optical path of the emitted image (137 “light rays”) by each of the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”) and the partial reflector (321 “partial reflector”) reflecting the emitted image at least once within the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”, page 6, paragraph 2 states “light rays 137 emitted by object 101 have the polarization state 141 after passing through the reflective polarizer 222. A portion of the light rays 137 is reflected from partial reflector 321 and is reflected from the reflective polarizer 222 in polarization state 143 after passing through first phase retarder 421. These light rays are incident on polarizer 360 in polarization state 147 and are transmitted to viewer 111”). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to utilize the optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer of Wong modified by the folded optical system folding an optical path of the emitted pixelated image by each of the common reflective polarizer and the partial reflector reflecting the emitted pixelated image at least once within the folded optical system before forming the pixelated virtual image, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to maintain a compact design while providing a wide field of view and low distortion (page 3, paragraph 2). Epstein teaches an emitted pixelated image (column 11, lines 17-39). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to utilize the optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer of Ouderkirk modified by an emitted pixelated image, as taught by Epstein, in order to remove image degradation such as ghost images and pixel blur (column 3, line 47 – column 4, line 3). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 (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. 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, 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk (WO 2018116080 A1)(see attached copy), in view of Epstein (US 9773847 B2) . Regarding claim 1 , Ouderkirk discloses an optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer, in at least Figure 10, comprising: a folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”, Figure 10) disposed between the display system (101 “object”, page 5, paragraph 3 states “The object 101 may be a display panel, for example, such as a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel”, Figure 10) and the viewer (111 “viewer”, Figure 10) and adapted to receive the emitted image (137 “light rays”, page 6, paragraph 2 states “In the illustrated embodiment, light rays 137 emitted by object 101”, Figure 10), the display system (101 “object”) and the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”) sharing a common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”, Figure 10) therebetween (Figure 10), the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”) adapted to: increase a brightness of the emitted image by recycling at least a portion of the emitted image within the display system (101 “object”, Figure 10), by reflecting at least a portion of the emitted image having a first polarization state (143 “second polarization state”, page 5, paragraph 3 states “reflective polarizer 222 substantially … reflecting light having an orthogonal second polarization state, (e.g., polarization state 143)”), wherein at least a portion of the reflected image has a second polarization state (141 “first polarization state”) orthogonal to the first polarization state (143 “second polarization state”, page 3, paragraph 3 states “a first polarization state (e.g., polarization state 141) and … an orthogonal second polarization state, (e.g., polarization state 143)”) and is transmitted by the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”, page 5, paragraph 3 states “reflective polarizer 222 substantially transmitting light having a first polarization state (e.g., polarization state 141)”) after being reflected by the display system (101 “object”, Figure 10); and reflecting at least a portion of the emitted image (137 “light rays”) that is transmitted by the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”), toward the viewer (111 “viewer”, page 6, paragraph 2 states “In the illustrated embodiment, light rays 137 emitted by object 101 have the polarization state 141 after passing through the reflective polarizer 222. A portion of the light rays 137 is reflected from partial reflector 321 and is reflected from the reflective polarizer 222 in polarization state 143 after passing through first phase retarder 421. These light rays are incident on polarizer 360 in polarization state 147 and are transmitted to viewer 111. Another portion of the light rays 137 is transmitted through partial reflector 321 in polarization state 149. This portion of the light rays 137 is blocked by polarizer 360 and is not transmitted to viewer 111”). However, Ouderkirk does not disclose a pixelated display system adapted to emit a pixelated image and a folded optical system adapted to form the pixelated virtual image. Epstein teaches a pixelated display system (200 “emissive display top surface pixel basis cell”, Figure 2B) adapted to emit a pixelated image (column 11, lines 17-39). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to utilize the optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer of Ouderkirk modified by a pixelated display system adapted to emit a pixelated image and a folded optical system adapted to form the pixelated virtual image, as taught by Epstein, in order to remove image degradation such as ghost images and pixel blur (column 3, line 47 – column 4, line 3). Regarding claim 2 , the combination of Ouderkirk and Epstein disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ouderkirk further discloses wherein the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”) comprises a plurality of alternating first polymeric layers having a lower index of refraction and second polymeric layers having a higher index of refraction (last paragraph of page 5 states “The reflective polarizer 222 may be a polymeric multilayer optical film polarizer or a wire-grid polarizer, for example”, page 8, paragraph 3 states “Any of the reflective polarizers used in any of the optical systems of the present description may be a thermoformed reflective polarizer which may be a thermoformed polymeric multilayer optical film. The polymeric multilayer optical film may include a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers”, page 8, paragraph 4 states “Such substantially uniaxially oriented multilayer optical films are described in U.S. Pat. No. 2010/0254002 (Merrill et al.) and may include a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers with the first polymeric layers having indices of refraction in a length direction (e.g., x-direction) and a thickness direction (e.g., z-direction) that are substantially the same, but substantially different from an index of refraction in a width direction (e.g., y-direction)”). Regarding claim 3 , the combination of Ouderkirk and Epstein disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ouderkirk further discloses wherein the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”) comprises a wire-grid polarizer (last paragraph of page 5 states “The reflective polarizer 222 may be a polymeric multilayer optical film polarizer or a wire-grid polarizer, for example”). Regarding claim 4 , the combination of Ouderkirk and Epstein disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Ouderkirk further discloses wherein the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”) further comprises a partial reflector (321 “partial reflector”, Figure 10) having an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a predetermined wavelength range (last paragraph of page 5 states “a partial reflector 321 having an average optical reflectance of at least 30% for a desired plurality of wavelengths”) extending at least from about 450 nm to about 600 nm (page 4, paragraph 4 states “The desired plurality of wavelengths may be the visible wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm, for example. Other wavelength ranges may also be used. For example, the desired plurality of wavelengths may include only a portion of the visible range (e.g., 450 nm to 680 nm)”), the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”) folding an optical path of the emitted image (137 “light rays”) by each of the common reflective polarizer (222 “reflective polarizer”) and the partial reflector (321 “partial reflector”) reflecting the emitted image at least once within the folded optical system (301 “integral second optical assembly”, 401 “integral third optical assembly”, 201 “integral first optical assembly”, page 6, paragraph 2 states “light rays 137 emitted by object 101 have the polarization state 141 after passing through the reflective polarizer 222. A portion of the light rays 137 is reflected from partial reflector 321 and is reflected from the reflective polarizer 222 in polarization state 143 after passing through first phase retarder 421. These light rays are incident on polarizer 360 in polarization state 147 and are transmitted to viewer 111”) before forming the virtual image (page 2, paragraph 11). However, Ouderkirk does not disclose an emitted pixelated image. Epstein teaches an emitted pixelated image (column 11, lines 17-39). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to utilize the optical system for displaying a pixelated virtual image to a viewer of Ouderkirk modified by an emitted pixelated image, as taught by Epstein, in order to remove image degradation such as ghost images and pixel blur (column 3, line 47 – column 4, line 3). Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm. 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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. /ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/815,033 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872
