CTNF 18/861,011 CTNF 90013 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. DETAILED ACTION The instant application having Application No. 18/861,011 filed on October 28, 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. Priority As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on June 29, 2022 (CN 202210759281.3). 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file. Drawings The applicant’s drawings submitted on October 28, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated April 11, 2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 3-9 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. US 2020/0249480 A1 (hereafter Martinez) in view of Evans et al. US 2009/0290079 A1 (hereafter Evans) . Regarding claim 1, Martinez teaches “A display system (Fig. 5 or Fig. 10) , comprising: a display module (electronic display 520, 1020) configured to emit light (light 521, 1021) , wherein a linear polarizer is attached to the display module (paragraph [0039]: “In some embodiments, while not illustrated, the polarized 521 is produced by a polarizing layer positioned over a surface of a non-polarized light-emitting display”. Clearly this also applies to 1020 that emits linear polarized light.) and configured to generate linearly polarized light (Fig. 5 first light state [X] which is a linear polarization given that paragraph [0040] discloses “light state [Y] is linearly polarized along the y-axis” or Fig. 10, [Y]) ; and in a light path starting from the display module, the display system further comprises a first… quarter wave plate (Fig. 5 QWP-2, Fig. 10 QWP-3) , a lens (the lens to the right of the central partial mirror within 304/1007, which is a lens because Fig. 5 is catadioptric, see paragraph [0008]. Catadioptric systems combine reflective and refractive elements, and the only refractive elements in Fig. 5 are the two lenses on either side of the partial mirror.) , a … mirror (partial mirror 304/1007) , a second… quarter wave plate (Fig. 5 QWP-1, Fig. 10 QWP-2) , and a reflective polarizer (polarizing beam splitter 302/1005 which is a reflective polarizer, see Y reflected component and X transmitted component by 302 in Figs. 5 and by 1005 in Fig. 10) , wherein… the display system generates an image at a first depth of field (focal plane 551, 1011) ; … display system generates an image at a second depth of field (focal plane 552, 1012) , wherein the first depth of field is different from the second depth of field (e.g. paragraph [0039]: “the HMD operates to provide light at the two focal planes 551, 552” and paragraph [0054]: “two focal planes 1011, 1012 in an HMD”) .” However, Martinez fails to teach “a first switchable quarter wave plate… a half mirror, a second switchable quarter wave plate… wherein both the first quarter wave plate and the second quarter wave plate have electrodes; the first quarter wave plate is driven at a first voltage and the second quarter wave plate is driven at a second voltage, so that the display system generates an image at a first depth of field; the first quarter wave plate is driven at the first voltage and the second quarter wave plate is driven at a third voltage, so that the display system generates an image at a second depth of field.” Evans teaches (Fig. 11) “A display system (Fig. 11), comprising: a display module (LCD 61 and backlight 60) configured to emit light (see light emitted therefrom in Fig. 11), … configured to generate linearly polarized light (see light emitted from LCD 61 in Fig. 10a as linearly polarized in the plane of the page); and in a light path starting from the display module, the display system further comprises a first switchable quarter wave plate (the combination of quarter wave plate 68 and switching half wave plate 69 is a switchable three-quarter wave plate, which is an odd multiple of a quarter wave plate and thus a quarter wave plate), a first lens (glass layer 70, note that the claim did not require the lens to have non-zero refractive power), a half mirror (50% mirror 63), a second switchable quarter wave plate (the combination of quarter wave plate 68’ and switching half wave plate 69’ is a switchable three-quarter wave plate, which is an odd multiple of a quarter wave plate and thus a quarter wave plate), and a reflective polarizer (reflective polarizer 62’, note that the claim merely recites that the elements are in the light path starting from the display module, not that they are “in order” starting from the display module), wherein both the first quarter wave plate and the second quarter wave plate have electrodes (the switching half-wave plates have electrodes that actuate them with voltage. See operation of the patterned retarders in e.g. paragraph [0193] and electrodes 112 and 113 in Fig. 25a.); the first quarter wave plate is driven at a first voltage and the second quarter wave plate is driven at a second voltage (paragraph [0145]: “When the half wave plate 69' is switched off and the half wave plate 69 is switched on, light follows "path 3", which includes reflections at the mirror 63' and the reflective polariser 62'. A displayed image is perceived at the image plane 67a.” Let the first voltage be “off” and the second voltage be “on”), so that the display system generates an image at a first depth of field (paragraph [0145]: “A displayed image is perceived at the image plane 67a”); the first quarter wave plate is driven at the first voltage and the second quarter wave plate is driven at a third voltage (paragraph [0145]: “When both of the half wave plates 69 and 69' are switched off, light follows "path 4", which includes reflections at the mirror 63, the reflective polariser 62, the mirror 63' and the reflective polariser 62'. A displayed image is thus perceived at the image plane 67c.” The first voltage is still “off” and the third voltage is also “off”), so that the display system generates an image at a second depth of field (paragraph [0145]: “A displayed image is thus perceived at the image plane 67c.”), wherein the first depth of field is different from the second depth of field (67a and 67c are different from one another).” Evans further teaches (paragraph [0123]): “The second partial reflector 63 comprises a partially reflecting and partially transmitting mirror. The mirror 63 is illustrated as "50%" mirror which reflects approximately half of the incident light and transmits approximately half of the incident light. However, the fraction of light transmitted or reflected may be chosen in order to achieve a desired relative brightness of the images displayed at the different depths.” Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the fraction of light reflected by the partial mirror of Martinez to be 50% as taught by Evans because Evans teaches that “the fraction of light transmitted or reflected may be chosen in order to achieve a desired relative brightness of the images displayed at the different depths” (paragraph [0123]). Evans further teaches that having two switchable retarders in the light path enables the arrangement to be “capable of displaying images at image planes of four different depths with respect to the display” (paragraph [0144]) rather than just two depths as shown in Figs. 9a and 9b. In order to work in concert with the reflective polarizers these are two switchable quarter wave plates (each made of a switchable half wave plate and a fixed quarter wave plate). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second quarter wave plates of Martinez be switchable quarter wave plates as taught by Evans in order to enable displaying images at an even larger number of different depths as taught by Evans paragraph [0144]. Regarding claim 3, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “ The display system according to claim 1 ,” and Martinez further teaches “ further comprising: one or more second lenses (geometric phase (GP) lens 1001) located in a light path from the reflective polarizer and away from the display module (see Fig. 10 GP lens 1001 is after PBS 1005 away from display 1020).” Regarding claim 4, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “ The display system according to claim 1 ,” and Martinez further teaches “ wherein an optical axis of the first quarter wave plate is orthogonal to an optical axis of the second quarter wave plate (see Fig. 10, QWP-3 rotated Y-polarized linear light to be right-circularly polarized, while QWP-2 rotated right-circularly polarized to be Y-polarized linear light, thus they have orthogonal optical axes. This is the same behavior described in paragraph [0033] of the instant application where 0° linearly polarized light passed through QWP 24 to be RHCP, and then passed through QWP 27 to return to 0° linearly polarized light), and an optical axis of the reflective polarizer is orthogonal to an optical axis of the linear polarizer (see Fig. 10, [Y] light is emitted by the linear polarizer of 1020, but is reflected by PBS 1005, thus their axes are orthogonal. This is the same behavior described in paragraph [0033] of the instant application where light output from the linear polarizer 23 is 0° and the reflective polarizer 28 transmits 90° linearly polarized light and reflects 0° linearly polarized light.) .” Regarding claim 5, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “The display system according to claim 1,” and Martinez further teaches “wherein the first quarter wave plate has a first optical state (the quarter wave plate state of QWP-2 in Fig. 5 or QWP-3 in Fig. 10) , and the second quarter wave plate has the first optical state (the quarter wave plate state of QWP-1 in Fig. 5 or QWP-2 in Fig. 10) wherein, when the first quarter wave plate is in the first optical state… the display system has a first light path and a first focal distance (the light path and focal distance of one of 551 or 552 in Fig. 5 or 1011 or 1012 in Fig. 10 of which there are actually four see paragraph [0056]) , and generates the image at the first depth of field (the depth of field thereof) ; when both the first quarter wave plate and the second quarter wave plate are in the first optical state (when both QWP’s are acting as quarter wave plates) , the display system has a second light path and a second focal distance (the light path and focal distance of the other one of 551 or 552 in Fig. 5 or another one of 1011 or 1012 in Fig. 10) , and generates the image at the second depth of field (the depth of field thereof) , wherein the second focal distance is less than the first focal distance (in Fig. 5 the two focal distances are different from one another by at least the focusing power of the curved partial mirror acting on the light whose path is reflected by PBS 302, thus one of the focal distances is less than the other. In Fig. 10 the two focal distances are different from one another by the focusing power of the curved partial mirror and the polarization selective geometric phase lens 1001, thus one of the focal distances is less than the other) , and the second depth of field is [different] than the first depth of field (each light path will have its own depth of field) .” However, Martinez fails to teach “the second quarter wave plate has the first optical state and a second optical state…wherein, when the first quarter wave plate is in the first optical state and the second quarter wave plate is in the second optical state, the display system has a first light path and a first focal distance… and the second depth of field is greater than the first depth of field.” Evans teaches “wherein the first quarter wave plate has a first optical state (paragraph [0145]: “the half wave plate 69 is switched on”), and the second quarter wave plate has the first optical state (paragraph [0145]: “the half wave plate 69' is switched on”) and a second optical state (paragraph [0145]: “the half wave plate 69' is switched off”), wherein, when the first quarter wave plate is in the first optical state and the second quarter wave plate is in the second optical state (paragraph [0145]: “When the half wave plate 69' is switched off and the half wave plate 69 is switched on, light follows "path 3", which includes reflections at the mirror 63' and the reflective polariser 62'. A displayed image is perceived at the image plane 67a.”), the display system has a first light path and a first focal distance (the light path and focal distance associated with image plane 67a), and generates the image at the first depth of field (the depth of field associated with image plane 67a); when both the first quarter wave plate and the second quarter wave plate are in the first optical state (paragraph [0145]: “When both of the half wave plates 69 and 69' are switched on, light passes directly through the layers along "path 1" to the viewing region so that a displayed image is perceived as emanating substantially from the actual location of the image-producing plane of the LCD 61” or “When both of the half wave plates 69 and 69' are switched off, light follows "path 4", which includes reflections at the mirror 63, the reflective polariser 62, the mirror 63' and the reflective polariser 62'. A displayed image is thus perceived at the image plane 67c.” These are both presented because the “on” state should correspond to the state in which both 69 and 69’ are active as half-wave plates, and thus create path 4, consistent with the description and illustration of the “on” state in Fig. 10(c).), the display system has a second light path and a second focal distance (the light path and focal distance associated with image plane 61 or 67c), and generates the image at the second depth of field (the depth of field associated with image plane 61 or 67c).” Evans further teaches that having two switchable retarders in the light path enables the arrangement to be “capable of displaying images at image planes of four different depths with respect to the display” (paragraph [0144]) rather than just two depths as shown in Figs. 9a and 9b. In order to work in concert with the reflective polarizers these are two switchable quarter wave plates (each made of a switchable half wave plate and a fixed quarter wave plate). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second quarter wave plates of Martinez be switchable quarter wave plates, such that the second quarter wave plate has two states and the device has two paths associated with the switching of the second quarter wave plate as taught by Evans in order to enable displaying images at an even larger number of different depths as taught by Evans paragraph [0144]. However, the Martinez – Evans combination fails to explicitly teach “wherein the second focal distance is less than the first focal distance, and the second depth of field is greater than the first depth of field.” It is a well-established proposition that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E). In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to create a head mounted display with multi-focal capabilities in order to reduce vergence accommodation conflict (VAC) as taught by Martinez paragraph [0023] (2) there are a finite number of combinations of positive and negative focal power imparted by the curvature of the partial mirror and the polarization selective focusing power of the geometric phase lens (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose wherein the second focal distance is less than the first focal distance, and the second depth of field is greater than the first depth of field because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill. Regarding claim 6, the Martinez – Evans combination introduced for claim 5 further teaches “ The display system according to claim 5, wherein the first optical state comprises a quarter wave plate state (Evans the “on” states of both 69 and 69’ that together with the adjacent fixed quarter wave plates generates a three-quarter wave plate function, which is a quarter wave plate state), and the second optical state comprises an off state (Evans: the “off” state of 69’, where the combination of 68’ and 69’ is only a quarter wave, not the three-quarter wave “on” state.).” Regarding claim 7, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “The display system according to claim 5,” and Martinez further teaches “ further comprising: a controller (controller 1904 and three controllers 1911-1913) configured to … generate images at two depths of field (paragraph [0082]: “Operations of the GP lens controller 1911, the LC switch controller 1912, and the display controller 1913 are coordinated so as to provide at least two focal planes 1931, 1932 at the second side of the device 1900.”).” However, Martinez fails to teach “a controller configured to control voltages applied to the electrodes of the first quarter wave plate and the electrodes of the second quarter wave plate.” Evans teaches “further comprising: a controller (paragraph [0142]: “controlled” thus there is a controller that performs the functions of Fig. 11) configured to control voltages applied to the electrodes of the first quarter wave plate ([0137] “a voltage is applied across a liquid crystal layer of the cell.” and paragraph [0145]) and the electrodes of the second quarter wave plate ([0137] “a voltage is applied across a liquid crystal layer of the cell.” and paragraph [0145]), so as to generate images at two depths of field (the depths associated with 61, 67a, 67b and 67c).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide controllers that control the voltages of the switchable quarter wave plates as taught by Evans, because there are a requirement to achieve the functionality of the device of the Martinez- Evans combination. Regarding claim 8, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “ The display system according to claim 5, ” and Martinez further teaches “ further comprising: a switchable half wave plate (LC switch 507 paragraph [0031]: “the first and second LC switches 507, 523 are respective liquid crystal layers that are each able to actively rotate the polarization state of the light passing therethrough. For example, the first LC switch 507 and the second LC switch 523 are each a half wave retarder.”) located in a light path between the display module and the first quarter wave plate (see Fig. 5, 507 is between 520 and QWP-2),” However, Martinez fails to explicitly teach “wherein the half wave plate has electrodes, and the half wave plate has different optical states under driving of different voltages.” Evans teaches “wherein the half wave plate has electrodes (the switching half-wave plates have electrodes that actuate them with voltage. See operation of the patterned retarders in e.g. paragraph [0193] and electrodes 112 and 113 in Fig. 25a.), and the half wave plate has different optical states under driving of different voltages (e.g. paragraph [0193] “voltages”).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate electrodes into the switchable half wave plates of Martinez and to control their states by applying voltages as taught by Evans, because this is at least one way to make and control a liquid crystal-based switchable retarder, and Martinez is silent as to how they work. Regarding claim 9, the Martinez – Evans combination introduced for claims 1 and 5 further teaches “The display system according to claim 8, wherein the half wave plate has the second optical state (the second optical state is the off state, which corresponds to light 554 of polarization [Y] being unaffected by LP-2 and continuing to be in the [Y] state), and, when the display system has the first light path or the second light path, the half wave plate is in the second optical state (the first light path and the second light path of the Martinez – Evans combination was created by the switching of quarter wave plates, thus in the combination there exists two light paths for each of the two states of LP-2.).” Regarding claim 17, the Martinez – Evans combination introduced for claim 8 further teaches “ The display system according to claim 8, wherein the first quarter wave plate comprises a first liquid crystal quarter wave plate (e.g. Evans paragraph [0193]); and/or the second quarter wave plate comprises a second liquid crystal quarter wave plate (e.g. Evans paragraph [0193]); and/or the half wave plate comprises a liquid crystal half wave plate (e.g. Evans paragraph [0193]).” Regarding claim 18, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “ A display device (Martinez: catadioptric HMD 100), comprising: the display system according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).” Regarding claim 19, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “The display system according to claim 18,” and Martinez further teaches “wherein the first quarter wave plate has a first optical state (the quarter wave plate state of QWP-2 in Fig. 5 or QWP-3 in Fig. 10) , and the second quarter wave plate has the first optical state (the quarter wave plate state of QWP-1 in Fig. 5 or QWP-2 in Fig. 10) wherein, when the first quarter wave plate is in the first optical state… the display system has a first light path and a first focal distance (the light path and focal distance of one of 551 or 552 in Fig. 5 or 1011 or 1012 in Fig. 10 of which there are actually four see paragraph [0056]) , and generates the image at the first depth of field (the depth of field thereof) ; when both the first quarter wave plate and the second quarter wave plate are in the first optical state (when both QWP’s are acting as quarter wave plates) , the display system has a second light path and a second focal distance (the light path and focal distance of the other one of 551 or 552 in Fig. 5 or another one of 1011 or 1012 in Fig. 10) , and generates the image at the second depth of field (the depth of field thereof) , wherein the second focal distance is less than the first focal distance (in Fig. 5 the two focal distances are different from one another by at least the focusing power of the curved partial mirror acting on the light whose path is reflected by PBS 302, thus one of the focal distances is less than the other. In Fig. 10 the two focal distances are different from one another by the focusing power of the curved partial mirror and the polarization selective geometric phase lens 1001, thus one of the focal distances is less than the other) , and the second depth of field is [different] than the first depth of field (each light path will have its own depth of field) .” However, Martinez fails to teach “the second quarter wave plate has the first optical state and a second optical state…wherein, when the first quarter wave plate is in the first optical state and the second quarter wave plate is in the second optical state, the display system has a first light path and a first focal distance… and the second depth of field is greater than the first depth of field.” Evans teaches “wherein the first quarter wave plate has a first optical state (paragraph [0145]: “the half wave plate 69 is switched on”), and the second quarter wave plate has the first optical state (paragraph [0145]: “the half wave plate 69' is switched on”) and a second optical state (paragraph [0145]: “the half wave plate 69' is switched off”), wherein, when the first quarter wave plate is in the first optical state and the second quarter wave plate is in the second optical state (paragraph [0145]: “When the half wave plate 69' is switched off and the half wave plate 69 is switched on, light follows "path 3", which includes reflections at the mirror 63' and the reflective polariser 62'. A displayed image is perceived at the image plane 67a.”), the display system has a first light path and a first focal distance (the light path and focal distance associated with image plane 67a), and generates the image at the first depth of field (the depth of field associated with image plane 67a); when both the first quarter wave plate and the second quarter wave plate are in the first optical state (paragraph [0145]: “When both of the half wave plates 69 and 69' are switched on, light passes directly through the layers along "path 1" to the viewing region so that a displayed image is perceived as emanating substantially from the actual location of the image-producing plane of the LCD 61” or “When both of the half wave plates 69 and 69' are switched off, light follows "path 4", which includes reflections at the mirror 63, the reflective polariser 62, the mirror 63' and the reflective polariser 62'. A displayed image is thus perceived at the image plane 67c.” These are both presented because the “on” state should correspond to the state in which both 69 and 69’ are active as half-wave plates, and thus create path 4, consistent with the description and illustration of the “on” state in Fig. 10(c).), the display system has a second light path and a second focal distance (the light path and focal distance associated with image plane 61 or 67c), and generates the image at the second depth of field (the depth of field associated with image plane 61 or 67c).” Evans further teaches that having two switchable retarders in the light path enables the arrangement to be “capable of displaying images at image planes of four different depths with respect to the display” (paragraph [0144]) rather than just two depths as shown in Figs. 9a and 9b. In order to work in concert with the reflective polarizers these are two switchable quarter wave plates (each made of a switchable half wave plate and a fixed quarter wave plate). Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first and second quarter wave plates of Martinez be switchable quarter wave plates, such that the second quarter wave plate has two states and the device has two paths associated with the switching of the second quarter wave plate as taught by Evans in order to enable displaying images at an even larger number of different depths as taught by Evans paragraph [0144]. However, the Martinez – Evans combination fails to explicitly teach “wherein the second focal distance is less than the first focal distance, and the second depth of field is greater than the first depth of field.” It is a well-established proposition that to reject a claim under a rationale of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following: (1) a finding that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art, which may include a design need or market pressure to solve a problem; (2) a finding that there had been a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem; (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success; and (4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2143(I)(E). In the instant case (1) there is an art recognized need to create a head mounted display with multi-focal capabilities in order to reduce vergence accommodation conflict (VAC) as taught by Martinez paragraph [0023] (2) there are a finite number of combinations of positive and negative focal power imparted by the curvature of the partial mirror and the polarization selective focusing power of the geometric phase lens (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued any of these solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (4) the Graham factual inquiries have been explained above. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose wherein the second focal distance is less than the first focal distance, and the second depth of field is greater than the first depth of field because it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success is within ordinary skill . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinez et al. US 2020/0249480 A1 (hereafter Martinez) in view of Evans et al. US 2009/0290079 A1 (hereafter Evans) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wheelwright et al. US 10,955,675 B1 (hereafter Wheelwright) . Regarding claim 2, the Martinez – Evans combination teaches “ The display system according to claim 1 ,” however, Martinez fails to teach “wherein the reflective polarizer is a wire grid polarizer integrated on the second quarter wave plate.” Evans teaches “ wherein the reflective polarizer is a wire grid polarizer ([0119]: “Such a polariser may, for example, comprise a wire-grid polarizer.”).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a wire grid polarizer as taught by Evans for the reflective polarizer of Martinez because Evans teaches that a wire-grid polarizer reflects light of one linear polarization and transmits light of the other linear polarization which is the desired functionality in Martinez. Wheelwright teaches a variable resolution display comprising appropriate switchable retarders (second switchable optical retarder 511), quarter wave plates (513 and 514, col. 15 lines 37-39: “a first optical retarder 514 (e.g., a quarter wave plate), a second optical retarder 513 (e.g., a quarter wave plate),”) and reflective polarizers (e.g. 516 col. 15 lines 54-57: “first reflector 516 is a polarizing reflector that is configured to reflect light having a first linear polarization and transmit light having a second linear polarization.”) Wheelwright further teaches “ wherein the reflective polarizer is… integrated on the second quarter wave plate (col. 16 line 11-15: “first optical retarder 514, second optical retarder 513, first reflector 516, second switchable optical retarder 511, and second optical retarder 513 may be formed on a same substrate and/or in a single laminated surface.” Thus reflective polarizer 516 can be integrated with both a switchable retarder 511, and a quarter wave retarder 513).” It is a well-established proposition that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the reflective polarizer and quarter wave plates of Martinez as taught by Wheelwright since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed into two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04(V) In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.") . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 10-16 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 10, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “The display system according to claim 9, wherein the first quarter wave plate further has the second optical state, the second quarter wave plate further has a third optical state, and the half wave plate further has a fifth optical state, wherein, when the half wave plate is in the fifth optical state, the first quarter wave plate is in the second optical state, and the second quarter wave plate is in the third optical state, the display system has a third light path and a third focal distance, and generates an image at a third depth of field, wherein the third focal distance is less than the second focal distance, and the third depth of field is greater than the second depth of field.” Claims 11-16 depend from claim 10 and are allowable for at least the reason stated above. Regarding claim 20, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “wherein the first quarter wave plate further has the second optical state, the second quarter wave plate further has a third optical state, and the half wave plate further has a fifth optical state; wherein, when the half wave plate is in the fifth optical state, the first quarter wave plate is in the second optical state, and the second quarter wave plate is in the third optical state, the display system has a third light path and a third focal distance, and generates an image at a third depth of field, wherein the third focal distance is less than the second focal distance, and the third depth of field is greater than the second depth of field; wherein the second quarter wave plate further has a fourth optical state, and, when the half wave plate is in the fifth optical state, the first quarter wave plate is in the second optical state, and the second quarter wave plate is in the fourth optical state, the display system has a fourth light path and a fourth focal distance, and generates an image at a fourth depth of field, wherein the fourth focal distance is greater than the first focal distance, and the fourth depth of field is less than the first depth of field.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dike US 2005/0111101 A1 “Optical System for Forming a Real Image in Space” pertinent to the state of the art. Iwane US 2016/0077351 A1 “Optical System, Optical Member, Micro-Mirror Array, Display Device, and Image Pickup Device” Fig. 5 pertinent to the state of the art. Sharp et al. US 2020/0142276 A1 “Compact Polarization-Based Multi-Pass Optical Architectures” Figs. 5A-5D pertinent to the state of the art. Ryu et al. US 2020/0142254 A1 “Imaging Device” Fig. 1 pertinent to the state of the art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F. 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, Ricky L 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. /CARA E RAKOWSKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 14 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 15 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 16 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 17 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 18 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 19 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 20 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/861,011 Page 21 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights