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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/4/2024 and 10/7/2024 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ratcliff et al. (US 2019/0045176).
Regarding Claim 1, Ratcliff discloses an electronic device (Fig. 2), comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 2, display 110, Paragraph 0037) configured to emit light from a planar surface; and
a lens element (Fig. 2, optical elements 202 comprising plano-concave lenslets 202a, 202b, 202c, and 202d, Paragraph 0037) in direct contact with the display panel (Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, planar side of lenslets 221 attached directly to display 110), wherein the lens element has first and second opposing surfaces (Fig. 2, right and left sides of plano-concave lenslets 202a, 202b, 202c, and 202d, Paragraph 0037),
wherein the first surface conforms to the planar surface of the display panel (Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, planar side, right side of lenslets, are attached directly to display 110), and wherein the second surface has concave curvature (Fig. 2, left side of plano-concave lenslets 202a, 202b, 202c, and 202d are concave, Paragraph 0037).
Regarding Claim 2, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the lens element is in direct contact with the display panel without an intervening air gap (Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, planar side of lenslets 221 attached directly to display 110).
Regarding Claim 3, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the lens element is in direct contact with the display panel without an intervening hard coating (Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, planar side of lenslets 221 attached directly to display 110, no hard coating is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 4, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein an interface between the lens element and the display panel is adhesive-free (Paragraph 0037, lines 7-9, planar side of lenslets 221 attached directly to display 110, no adhesive is disclosed).
Regarding Claim 5, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein comprising an additional lens element (Fig. 2, primary lens array 103 comprising lenslets 103a, 103b, 103c, and 103d, Paragraph 0034 and Paragraph 0035, lines 7-8), wherein the lens element is interposed between the display panel and the additional lens element (Fig. 2, 202 is between 110 and 103, as shown).
Regarding Claim 10, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein further comprising second and third additional lens elements (Fig. 2, primary lens array 103 comprising lenslets 103a, 103b, 103c, and 103d, Paragraph 0034 and Paragraph 0035, lines 7-8, lenslets 103b and 103c being the second and third additional lens elements).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliff et al. (US 2019/0045176) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0083484).
Regarding Claim 6, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the lens element has a first index of refraction, and wherein the additional lens element has a second index of refraction different than the first index of refraction.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lens element has a first index of refraction, and wherein the additional lens element has a second index of refraction different than the first index of refraction (Fig. 9, PCL2 and microlens ML have different refractive indexes, Paragraph 0099, lines 1-8), for the purpose of adjusting a focal point.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Ratcliff with the wherein the lens element has a first index of refraction, and wherein the additional lens element has a second index of refraction different than the first index of refraction of Lee, for the purpose of adjusting a focal point.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ratcliff et al. (US 2019/0045176) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0265494).
Regarding Claim 7, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the lens element has an index of refraction, and wherein the additional lens element has the index of refraction.
However, Takagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the lens element has an index of refraction, and wherein the additional lens element has the index of refraction (Fig. 4B, lenses L1 and L2 have the same high index, n=2.0, Paragraph 0056 and Paragraph 0058, lines 1-8), for the purpose of mitigating color aberration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Ratcliff with the wherein the lens element has an index of refraction, and wherein the additional lens element has the index of refraction of Takagi, for the purpose of mitigating color aberration.
Regarding Claim 8, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above wherein the additional lens element has a third surface (Fig. 2, right side of primary lens array 103 comprising lenslets 103a, 103b, 103c, and 103d, Paragraph 0034 and Paragraph 0035, lines 7-8),
but doesn’t specifically disclose and wherein the second surface of the lens element conforms to the third surface of the additional lens element.
However, Takagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches and wherein the second surface of the lens element conforms to the third surface of the additional lens element (Fig. 2, surface CV of lens L1 and surface CC or Lens L2 Paragraph 0032), for the purpose of minimizing the air gap between lenses.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Ratcliff with the and wherein the second surface of the lens element conforms to the third surface of the additional lens element of Takagi, for the purpose of minimizing the air gap between lenses.
Regarding Claim 9, Ratcliff discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose further comprising a partially reflective layer interposed between the lens element and the additional lens element.
However, Takagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising a partially reflective layer interposed between the lens element and the additional lens element (Fig. 4B, half mirror 21 is between the lenses L1 and L2, Paragraphs 0034-0035 and Paragraph 0058, lines 1-8), for the purpose of transmitting part of an image light and reflecting another part of the image light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Ratcliff with the further comprising a partially reflective layer interposed between the lens element and the additional lens element of Takagi, for the purpose of transmitting part of an image light and reflecting another part of the image light.
Claims 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052), in view of Ratcliff et al. (US 2019/0045176) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0265494), further in view of Georgiou et al. (US 2021/0239883).
Regarding Claim 11, Khan discloses an electronic device (Abstract), comprising:
a display panel (Fig. 2, display 40) configured to produce light, wherein the display panel comprises an array of pixels (Fig. 2, pixel array 14), a linear polarizer (Fig. 2, linear polarizer 16), and a quarter wave plate (Fig. 2, quarter wave plate 18).
Khan does not specifically disclose
a plurality of microlenses formed over the display panel; and
a lens module, comprising:
a first lens element on the plurality of microlenses;
a second lens element; and
a layer interposed between the first lens element and the second lens element.
However, Ratcliff, in the same field of endeavor teaches a plurality of microlenses formed over the display panel (Fig. 2, optical elements 202 comprising plano-concave lenslets 202a, 202b, 202c, and 202d, Paragraph 0037), for the purpose of focusing image light.
Takagi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a lens module, comprising: a first lens element (Fig. 4B, lens L1); a second lens element (Fig. 4B, lens L2); and a layer interposed between the first lens element and the second lens element (Fig. 4B, half mirror 21 is between the lenses L1 and L2, Paragraphs 0034-0035 and Paragraph 0058, lines 1-8), for the purpose of transmitting part of a focused image light and reflecting another part of the image light.
Georgiou, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a first lens element on the plurality of microlenses (Fig. 3, focusing lens 202 and the focusing lenslets 208), for the purpose of focusing image light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Khan with a plurality of microlenses formed over the display panel of Ratcliff, and a lens module, comprising: a first lens element; a second lens element; and a layer interposed between the first lens element and the second lens element of Takagi, and a first lens element on the plurality of microlenses of Georgiou, for the purpose of transmitting part of a focused image light and reflecting another part of the image light.
Regarding Claim 14, Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi further in view of Georgiou discloses as is set forth above and Khan further discloses wherein the layer comprises a quarter wave plate (Paragraph 0028, waveplates can be used to provide the desired lens power, Paragraph 0036, quarter wave plate).
Regarding Claim 15, Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi further in view of Georgiou discloses as is set forth above and Khan further discloses wherein the layer comprises a linear polarizer (Paragraph 0028, linear polarizers can be used to provide the desired lens power, Paragraph 0031 and Paragraph 0033, linear polarizers).
Regarding Claim 16, Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi further in view of Georgiou discloses as is set forth above and Khan further discloses wherein the layer comprises a reflective polarizer (Paragraph 0028, reflective polarizers can be used to provide the desired lens power, Paragraph 0032, reflective polarizer).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052), in view of Ratcliff et al. (US 2019/0045176) in view of Takagi et al. (US 2019/0265494), view of Georgiou et al. (US 2021/0239883), further in view of Ando et al. (US 2019/0079304).
Regarding Claim 12, Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi further in view of Georgiou discloses as is set forth above but doesn’t specifically disclose wherein the layer comprises a hard coating.
However, Ando, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the layer comprises a hard coating (Paragraph 0188-0189, a hardcoat layer is included as an outermost layer of a half mirror), for the purpose of increasing the pencil hardness of the surface of a half mirror.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi further in view of Georgiou with the wherein the layer comprises a hard coating, of Ando, for the purpose of increasing the pencil hardness of the surface of a half mirror.
Regarding Claim 13, Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi in view of Georgiou, further in view of Ando discloses as is set forth above and Ando additionally discloses wherein the hard coating comprises a partially reflective layer (Paragraph 0188-0189, a hardcoat layer is included as an outermost layer of a half mirror), for the purpose of transmitting part of a focused image light and reflecting another part of the image light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Khan in view of Ratcliff in view of Takagi in view of Georgiou, further in view of Ando with the wherein the hard coating comprises a partially reflective layer of Ando, for the purpose of transmitting part of a focused image light and reflecting another part of the image light.
Claims 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052) in view of Peng et al. (US 2020/0049872).
Regarding Claim 17, Khan discloses an electronic device (Fig. 2), comprising:
an array of pixels (Fig. 2, pixel array 14, Paragraph 0026) configured to produce light; and
a lens module (Fig. 2, optical system 20, Paragraph 0022) that receives the light from the array of pixels, wherein the lens module comprises:
a lens element (Fig. 2, lens element 26, Paragraph 0027) having first and second opposing sides (Fig. 2, lens element 26 right side and left side, Paragraph 0027);
a partially reflective mirror (Fig. 2, partially reflective mirror 22 on the right side of lens element 26, Paragraph 0030) interposed between the first surface of the lens element and the array of pixels (Fig. 2, partially reflective mirror 22 is between the right side of the lens element 26 and the pixel array 14, Paragraph 0030); and
a layer on the second side of the lens element (Fig. 2, reflective polarizer 30 on the left side of lens element 26, Paragraph 0032).
Khan does not specifically disclose
a cholesteric liquid crystal layer on the second side of the lens element.
However, Peng, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cholesteric liquid crystal layer on the second side of the lens element (Paragraph 0097, the reflective polarizer can be implemented using a cholesteric liquid crystal), for the purpose of reflecting a specific handedness of light.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Khan with a cholesteric liquid crystal layer on the second side of the lens element, of Peng, for the purpose of reflecting a specific handedness of light.
Regarding Claim 18, Khan in view of Peng discloses as is set forth above and Peng further discloses wherein a surface of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer conforms to the second surface of the lens element (Paragraph 0089, lines 5-6, Fig. 8, partial reflector 812 formed on M-1), for the purpose of reflecting a specific handedness of light.
Regarding Claim 20 Khan in view of Peng discloses as is set forth above and Peng further discloses wherein an interface between the cholesteric liquid crystal layer and the second surface of the lens element is adhesive-free (Paragraph 0089, lines 5-6, Fig. 8, partial reflector 812 formed on M-1, Peng is silent regarding adhesives, glue, or cement), for the purpose of reflecting a specific handedness of light.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052) in view of Peng et al. (US 2020/0049872), further in view of Clarke et al. (US 2009/0096981).
Regarding Claim 19, Khan in view of Peng discloses as is set forth above does not further specifically disclose wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer forms a Fresnel lens.
However, Clarke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer forms a Fresnel lens (Fig. 16, Paragraph 0035, lines 1-4), for the purpose of selectively changing the polarization state of a short-focus optical element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the electronic device of Khan in view of Peng with wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer forms a Fresnel lens, of Clarke, for the purpose of selectively changing the polarization date of a short-focus optical element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lo et al. (US 2023/0367122), Zhou et al. (US 2020/0089023), Koerber et al. (US 2020/0084434), He et al. (US 11,719,936), He et al. (US 2021/0294105), Khan et al. (US 10,203,489), He et al. (US 12,140,765), He et al. (US 2023/0333390), Taketani et al. (US 11,977,228), Taketani et al. (US 2021/0231957), Tohara et al. (US 2020/0192079), and Tohara et al. (US 2021/0239969) are cited to show similar devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
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 on (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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights