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 .
Response to Amendment
The cancellation of Claims 3, 5, 7-14 in the submission filed 8/12/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (Figures 2-5) in the reply filed on 8/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 9/25/2024. These drawings are objected to for the following reason(s) as set forth below.
Figure 1 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Abstract, line 1- ‘The present disclosure provides an’ should read ‘An’
Abstract, line 2- ‘comprises’ should read ‘includes’
Abstract, line 3- ‘comprises’ should read ‘includes’.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the 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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites the limitation ‘…by gluing…’ in line 3. This is believed to be a process limitation that does not impart any recognizable distinguishing characteristic to the final product.
“Process limitations cannot impart patentability to product claim where product is not patentably distinguished over prior art.” In re Dike, 157 USPQ 581 (CCPA 1968).
It is well-settled that the “[p]resence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to that product.” In re Stephens, 345 F.2d 1020 (CCPA 1965), 145 USPQ 565, citing Dilnot. See also MPEP 2113. Thus, this limitation has not been given significant patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 15 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the proximity of the first incident surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a proximity of the first incident surface’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the proximity of the second incident surface" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a proximity of the second incident surface’.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the proximity of the third incident surface" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a proximity of the third incident surface’.
Claims 4, 6 are dependent on Claim 2, and hence inherit the deficiencies of Claim 2.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the hypotenuse surface of the first right-angle triangular prism" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a hypotenuse surface of the first right-angle triangular prism’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the hypotenuse surface of the second right-angle triangular prism" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a hypotenuse surface of the second right-angle triangular prism’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the hypotenuse surface of the third right-angle triangular prism" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a hypotenuse surface of the third right-angle triangular prism’.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the hypotenuse surface of the fourth right-angle triangular prism" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a hypotenuse surface of the fourth right-angle triangular prism’.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the proximity of the emergent surface" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination, this has been taken to be ‘a proximity of the emergent surface’.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berman (U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2005/0041289 A1).
Berman discloses an optical module (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-21), comprising an optical path processing assembly (See for example ‘Prism’, ‘Cold mirror’ in Figure 1; 300 in Figure 3) and at least two light-emitting displays (See for example 344, 354, 364 in Figure 3); wherein, the optical path processing assembly comprises a combined lens (See for example ‘Prism’ in Figure 1; 300 in Figure 3) and a reflection mirror (See for example ‘Cold mirror’ in Figure 1), the reflection mirror is located on one side of the combined lens (In the instant case, the ‘Cold mirror’ in Figure 1 faces the surface on which ‘Input polarized white light’ is incident in Figure 3), and a surface of the combined lens facing the reflection mirror (In the instant case, the ‘Cold mirror’ in Figure 1 faces the surface on which ‘Input polarized white light’ is incident in Figure 3) is provided facing away from an emergent surface of the combined lens (In the instant case, the emergent surface is the surface that ‘Output’ exits from the prism assembly in Figure 3); and a first light ray (See for example light path from 344 to ‘Output’ in Figures 3-4) emitted from one of the light-emitting displays (See for example 344 in Figures 3-4) is configured to pass through the optical path processing assembly to be emitted from the emergent surface, forming a first optical path within the optical path processing assembly; a second light ray (See for example light path from 364 to ‘Output’ in Figures 3-4) emitted from another of the light-emitting displays (See for example 364 in Figures 3-4) is configured to pass through the optical path processing assembly to be emitted from the emergent surface, forming a second optical path within the optical path processing assembly, wherein an optical distance of the first optical path is equal to that of the second optical path (In the instant case, the optical path from 344 to ‘Output’ and the optical path from 364 to ‘Output’ are equal; Paragraphs 0065-0066). Berman further discloses the at least two light-emitting displays comprises a first light-emitting display (See for example 344 in Figure 3), a second light-emitting display (See for example 364 in Figure 3), and a third light-emitting display (See for example 354 in Figure 3); the combined lens has a first incident surface (See for example surface on which 344 is attached in Figure 3), a second incident surface (See for example surface on which 364 is attached in Figure 3), and a third incident surface (See for example surface on which 354 is attached in Figure 3); the first light-emitting display is in a proximity of the first incident surface, and the first incident surface is adjacent to and perpendicular to the emergent surface (See for example 344, surface on which 344 is attached, and the surface from which ‘Output’ is emitted in Figure 3); the second light-emitting display is in a proximity of the second incident surface, and the second incident surface is parallel to the first incident surface surface (See for example 364, surface on which 364 is attached, and the surface from which ‘Output’ is emitted in Figure 3); and the third light-emitting display is in a proximity of the third incident surface, and the third incident surface is adjacent to and parallel to the emergent surface surface (See for example 354, surface on which 354 is attached, and the surface from which ‘Output’ is emitted in Figure 3); the combined lens comprises a first prism and a second prism (See for example 310, 330, 350, 370 in Figure 3) arranged in a mutually attached manner, and each of the first prism and second prism is respectively formed by gluing (See Section 11 above) hypotenuse surfaces of two right-angle triangular prisms; and the glued hypotenuse surfaces of the first prism form an angle with those of the second prism (In the instant case, compare hypotenuses of 330 and 310, or hypotenuses of 350 and 310 in Figure 3); and an electronic device (See for example Figure 1), comprising a lens (See for example ‘Projection lens’ in Figure 1) and the above optical module (See for example ‘Prism’ in Figure 1), the lens being provided in a proximity of the emergent surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical module as generally set forth in Claims 1-2, 4, 6, the module including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 1-2, 4, 6, wherein the first prism comprises a first right-angle triangular prism and a second right-angle triangular prism, a hypotenuse surface of the first right-angle triangular prism is provided with a first film layer, and a hypotenuse surface of the second right-angle triangular prism is provided with a second film layer; and the second prism comprises a third right-angle triangular prism and a fourth right-angle triangular prism, a hypotenuse surface of the third right-angle triangular prism is provided with a third film layer, and a hypotenuse surface of the fourth right-angle triangular prism is provided with a fourth film layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
9/9/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights