DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/29/2026, 1/8/2026 and 12/17/2024 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner considered the information disclosure statement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-11, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches an optical system (figs. 1-3, abstract, an optical module and a head mount display), comprising:
a lens (figs. 1-3, lens 210), comprising a planar surface (fig. 1-3, planar surface 212; see paragraph [0039] “the planar gluing of the second surface 212”) and an aspherical surface (figs. 1-3, surface 211; see paragraph [0059] data of table 1, the surface 211 is aspherical surface); the aspherical surface being a convex surface (see paragraph [0050] “the first surface 211 is convex toward the display 10”); and a side of the planar surface (see fig. 2, a side of the planar surface 212) that is away from the aspherical surface (the surface 211) being a light (figs. 1-3, the light 110; paragraph [0038] “the light 110 exiting through the display 10”) exit side (see fig.1, the human eye 70 is exit side) of the lens (the lens 210);
a polarization transflective film (figs. 1-3, polarization-reflecting film 50; paragraph [0045] “polarization-reflecting film 50”), disposed on a side of the planar surface of the lens (surface 212 of the lens 210) that is away from the aspherical surface (211) of the lens (see fig. 1, paragraph [0045], a polarizing film 60 provided on a side of the first lens 210 facing away from the display 10);
a phase retardation film (figs. 1-3, quarter-wave plate 40; paragraph [0038] “quarter-wave plate 40”), disposed between the polarization transflective film (polarization-reflecting film 50) and the planar surface of the lens (surface 212; see Sun, figs. 1-3, the phase retardation film 40, disposed between the polarization transflective film 50 and the planar surface 212 of the lens 210);
a transflective film (figs. 1-3, beam-splitting element 30; paragraph [0038] “a beam-splitting element 30”), disposed on a side of the aspherical surface (211) of the lens (210) that is away from the planar surface (212) of the lens (210);
wherein the lens (210) is an integrated lens (see fig. 2, the lens 210 is an integrated lens); the planar surface (212) and the aspherical surface (211) are located on two opposite sides of the integrated lens (210);
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a focal length of the optical system is 26 millimeters to 28 millimeters (paragraph [0057] the focal length of the optical module may be 23.2 mm); an effective aperture of the lens is 50 millimeters to 52 millimeters (paragraph [0059], data of table 2, about 44 mm); and a curvature radius of the aspherical surface is -93 millimeters to -97 millimeters (paragraph [0059] data of table 1, about -84.4 mm).
However, Song teaches the analogous optical system (Song, abstract, the ocular lens comprises a reflective polaroid, a 1/4 wave plate and a lens set with positive focal power from a human eye side to an image source side in sequence along an optical axis, wherein the lens set comprises one or more lenses, and an aspherical mirror surface of any lens is plated with semi-permeable and semi-reflective optical thin film; see fig. 1, paragraph [0062] “the eyepiece according to an exemplary embodiment of this application includes, in sequence along the optical axis from the human eye side to the image source side: aperture STO, reflective polarizer RL, quarter-wave plate L, first lens E1, filter E2 and image source surface S15”), and further teaches
wherein a focal length of the optical system is 26 millimeters to 28 millimeters (26.17mm; see Song, fig. 1, paragraph [0069] “the total effective focal length of the eyepiece is f = 26.17 mm”); an effective aperture of the lens is 50 millimeters to 52 millimeters (referring to the scale in the annotated image, Song, fig. 1, an effective aperture of the lens E1 is approximately 52 millimeters; see paragraph [0075], “f/EPD = 3.27, where f is the total effective focal length of the eyepiece and EPD is the entrance pupil diameter of the eyepiece.”, EPD = f/ 3.27 = 26.17/3.27 = 8 mm; see annotated image, Song, fig. 1, because of ratio of the EPD to the effective aperture is approximately 3.26/0.5 = 6.25, when EPD = 8 mm, the effective aperture is approximately 52 mm); and a curvature radius of the aspherical surface is -93 millimeters to -97 millimeters (see annotated image, Song, fig. 1, the curvature radius of the aspherical surface is approximately 95.78 mm; see paragraph [0050] “where Rm is the radius of curvature of the surface where the semi-transparent and semi-reflective optical film is located, and f is the total effective focal length of the eyepiece. More specifically, Rm and f can further satisfy -4.96 ≤ Rm/f ≤ -3.66. When the radius of curvature of the surface on which the semi-transparent and semi-reflective optical film is located satisfies the above relationship”; paragraph [0046] “A semi-transparent, semi-reflective optical thin film can be deposited on the near-image source side of the first lens E”; paragraph [0008] “a semi-transparent and semi-reflective optical film is coated on the aspherical mirror surface of any one of the lenses”; so if a semi-transparent, semi-reflective optical thin film be deposited on the near-image source side of the first lens E1, a curvature radius of the aspherical surface Rm, Rm and f can further satisfy -4.96 ≤ Rm/f ≤ -3.66, since f = 26.17 mm, described above, then 4.96*26.17 ≤ Rm ≤ -3.66*26.17, 129.8 mm ≤ Rm ≤ -95.78 mm; further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller,105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955); Rm is approximately 95.78 mm, thus, the curvature radius of the aspherical surface is -93 millimeters to -97 millimeters).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Sun to have the specific curvature radius of the aspherical surface as taught by Song for the purpose to correct the spherical aberration and field curvature aberration of the lens, improve the clarity and uniformity of the image, and alleviate problems such as eye fatigue and dizziness, so as to obtain a better visual experience (Song, paragraph [0050]).
PNG
media_image1.png
623
1081
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum thickness of the lens is 6 millimeters to 8 millimeters (7mm; see fig. 1, paragraph [0059] data of table 1, thickness of the lens 210 is 7.000401 mm).
Regarding claim 4, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 13 millimeters to 21 millimeters (13 mm; see Sun fig. 1, paragraph [0059] data of table 1, the eye relief of the optical system is the distance from the human eye 70, STOP, to surface 222 =13 mm).
Regarding claim 5, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 4 and Sun further teaches wherein the eye relief of the optical system is no less than 15 millimeters (13 mm; described in claim 4).
Regarding claim 6, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 4 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum field of view of the optical system is 100° to 110° (see Sun, paragraph [0057] “The imaging angle of view is 100° to 105°, e.g., 100°, within which the user can observe a clear image”).
Regarding claim 9, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of the lens is 1.5 to 1.6 (Sun, paragraph [0044] “the first lens 210 and the second lens 220 may be made of OKP or PMMA, methyl methacrylate”; however, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07).
However, Song teaches the analogous lens (Song, fig. 5, lens E1, as described in paragraph [0092] “The first lens E1 has positive optical power, and its side near the human eye is convex, its side near the image source is convex, and both the side near the human eye and the side near the image source of the first lens E1 are aspherical”), and further teaches
wherein a refractive index of the lens (Song, fig. 5, lens E1) is 1.5 to 1.6 (1.53; see page 83, data of table 3, paragraph [0095] “Table 3 shows the surface type, radius of curvature, thickness, material, and conic coefficient of each element of the eyepiece in Example 3”; the refractive index of the lens E1 is 1.53).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Sun to have the specific material as taught by Song for the purpose to have the VR eyepiece that is thin, lightweight, and has high imaging quality, suitable for HMD devices (Song, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein the phase retardation film (Sun, figs. 1-3, quarter-wave plate 40) and the polarization transflective film (the polarization-reflecting film 50) are fitted to the planar surface (the surface 212).
Regarding claim 11, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein a display device (Sun, fig. 1, display 10; paragraph [0030] “the display 10”), comprising a display screen (paragraph [0058] “the display screen”) and the optical system (Sun, figs. 1-3, the optical system) according to claim 1 (see Sun, described in claim 1) , wherein the display screen (see Sun, fig. 1, the display 10) is located on a side of the aspherical surface (the surface 211) of the lens (lens 210) that is away from the planar surface (surface 212) of the lens (lens 210); and a display surface of the display screen (see Sun, fig. 1, have a display surface of the display screen 10) is located on a focal plane (fig. 1, data of table 1, the surface of the display object surface) of a light (fig. 1, the light 110) incident side of the optical system (see Sun, paragraph [0058] “The design results of one of the embodiments refer to Table 1 and Table 2, which respectively list the optical surface number, Surface, numbered sequentially from human eye, STOP, to the display screen”; so, the display 10 surface of the display screen is located on a focal plane, the surface of the display object surface, of a light 110 incident side of the optical system).
Regarding claim 13, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 11 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum size of the display surface of the display screen is 2 inches to 3 inches (2.1 inches; see Sun, paragraph [0057] “the size of the light-emergent surface of the display 10 is 2.1 inches”).
Regarding claim 16, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 13 millimeters to 21 millimeters (13 mm; see Sun fig. 1, paragraph [0059] data of table 1, the eye relief of the optical system is the distance from the human eye 70, STOP, to surface 222 = 13 mm), a maximum thickness of the lens is 6 millimeters to 8 millimeters (7mm; see fig. 1, paragraph [0059] data of table 1, thickness of the lens 210 is 7.000401 mm), but Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a refractive index of the lens is 1.5 to 1.6 (Sun, paragraph [0044] “the first lens 210 and the second lens 220 may be made of OKP or PMMA, methyl methacrylate”; however, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07, citing In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988). See also Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), as cited in MPEP § 2144.07).
However, Song teaches the analogous lens (Song, fig. 5, lens E1, as described in paragraph [0092] “The first lens E1 has positive optical power, and its side near the human eye is convex, its side near the image source is convex, and both the side near the human eye and the side near the image source of the first lens E1 are aspherical”), and further teaches
wherein a refractive index of the lens (Song, fig. 5, lens E1) is 1.5 to 1.6 (1.53; see page 83, data of table 3, paragraph [0095] “Table 3 shows the surface type, radius of curvature, thickness, material, and conic coefficient of each element of the eyepiece in Example 3”; the refractive index of the lens E1 is 1.53).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Sun to have the specific material as taught by Song for the purpose to have the VR eyepiece that is thin, lightweight, and has high imaging quality, suitable for HMD devices (Song, paragraph [0005]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached), and further in view of Sun (CN111929906A, of record, see IDS dated 12/17/2024, English translation attached, hereinafter called Sun'906').
Regarding claim 2, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein focal length of the lens is 160 millimeters to 180 millimeters (Sun, paragraph [0057] “the focal length of the first lens 210 is 154.2 mm”).
However, Sun'906' teaches the analogous optical system (Sun'906', abstract, the image display structure comprises a display screen, a transparent plate, an imaging lens and a first quarter-wave plate, wherein the display screen is used for emitting display light, the transparent plate is arranged in the emitting direction of the display light, the imaging lens is arranged in a light path between the display screen and the transparent plate), and further teaches
wherein focal length of the lens (see Sun'906', fig. 1, the lens 30 has been referred to as the lens) is 160 millimeters to 180 millimeters (Sun'906', fig. 1, paragraph [0067] “the focal length f1 of the imaging lens 30 is 167.3 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the focal lengths of the lens of Sun to fit into the claimed range as taught by Sun'906' for the purpose to reduce the overall volume of the image display structure (Sun'906', paragraph [0065]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached), and further in view of Etter et al. (US20200081234).
Regarding claim 7, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 6, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system at the maximum field of view is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter.
However, Etter teaches the analogous optical systems (Etter, abstract, optical systems for displaying an image are described), and further teaches
wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, paragraph [0062] “the MTF vs. spatial frequency for the optical system 500”) at the maximum field of view (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, TS 45.00 deg) is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter (is approximately 0.82; see fig. 4B, as described in paragraph [0062], “In FIG. 4B, the MTF vs. spatial frequency curves are plotted for 0, 25, 40, and 45 degree angles of light at the exit pupil opening 61 for both tangential (T) and sagittal (S) orientations.”; thus, a modulation transfer function value of the optical system 500 at the maximum field of view, TS 45.00 deg, is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation transfer function of Sun to have the specific modulation transfer function value of the optical system as taught by Etter for the purpose to reduce such aberrations to provide the desirable aspects of small spot size with a large field of view (Etter, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 8, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 6, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system at the maximum field of view is no less than 0.8 at a position where a spatial frequency is 15 line pairs/millimeter.
However, Etter teaches the analogous optical systems (Etter, abstract, optical systems for displaying an image are described), and further teaches
wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, paragraph [0062] “the MTF vs. spatial frequency for the optical system 500”) at the maximum field of view (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, TS 45.00 deg) is no less than 0.8 at a position where a spatial frequency is 15 line pairs/millimeter (is approximately 0.88; see fig. 4B, as described in paragraph [0062], “In FIG. 4B, the MTF vs. spatial frequency curves are plotted for 0, 25, 40, and 45 degree angles of light at the exit pupil opening 61 for both tangential (T) and sagittal (S) orientations”; thus, a modulation transfer function value of the optical system 500 at the maximum field of view, TS 45.00 deg, is no less than 0.8 at a position where a spatial frequency is 15 line pairs/millimeter).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation transfer function of Sun to have the specific modulation transfer function value of the optical system as taught by Etter for the purpose to reduce such aberrations to provide the desirable aspects of small spot size with a large field of view (Etter, paragraph [0030]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached), and further in view of Ambur et al. (US20180180788).
Regarding claim 12, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 11, Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a distance between the aspherical surface and the display surface of the display screen is 26 millimeters to 28 millimeters.
However, Ambur teaches the analogous optical system (Ambur, abstract, a multilayer reflective polarizer convex along orthogonal first and second axes orthogonal to an optical axis passing thorough an apex of the multilayer reflective polarizer is described), and further teaches
wherein a distance between the aspherical surface (see Ambur, fig. 2, optical system 200, as described in paragraphs [0209]-[0214]; data of table 8, the surf. 3 has been referred to as the aspherical surface) and the display surface of the display screen (see Ambur, fig. 2, optical system 200, as described in paragraphs [0209]-[0214]; data of table 8, the surf. 8 has been referred to as the display surface of the display screen) is 26 millimeters to 28 millimeters (27.9 mm; see paragraph [0209], data of table 8, distance from surf. 3 to surf. 8 is 27.9 mm).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lens of Sun to have the specific distance as taught by Ambur for the purpose to provide a system having a high field of view, a high contrast, a low chromatic aberration, a low distortion, and/or a high efficiency (Ambur, paragraph [0050]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached), and further in view of Sun (CN111929906A, of record, see IDS dated 12/17/2024, English translation attached, hereinafter called Sun'906') and Yamanaka (US6094242).
Regarding claim 14, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum field of view of the optical system is 100° to 110° (see Sun, paragraph [0057] “The imaging angle of view is 100° to 105°, e.g., 100°, within which the user can observe a clear image”).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein focal length of the lens is 160 millimeters to 180 millimeters (154.2 mm).
However, Sun'906' teaches the analogous optical system (Sun'906', abstract, the image display structure comprises a display screen, a transparent plate, an imaging lens and a first quarter-wave plate, wherein the display screen is used for emitting display light, the transparent plate is arranged in the emitting direction of the display light, the imaging lens is arranged in a light path between the display screen and the transparent plate), and further teaches
wherein focal length of the lens (see Sun'906', fig. 1, the lens 30 has been referred to as the lens) is 160 millimeters to 180 millimeters (Sun'906', fig. 1, paragraph [0067] “the focal length f1 of the imaging lens 30 is 167.3 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the focal lengths of the lens of Sun to fit into the claimed range as taught by Sun'906' for the purpose to reduce the overall volume of the image display structure (Sun'906', paragraph [0065]).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters.
However, Yamanaka teaches the analogous optical system (Yamanaka, abstract, the optical device includes a refractor consisting of a refracting element with half-mirror coating and a circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror, which are disposed in order from the incident side. The circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror consists of a quarter-wave plate, a half-mirror and a polarizer or cholesteric liquid crystal, which are disposed in order from the incident side), and further teaches
wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters (20 mm; see Yamanaka, col. 14, line 53, “An eye relief must be 20 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sun to have the specific eye relief as taught by Yamanaka for the purpose of enabling a spectacled user to look at the image(Yamanaka, col. 14, lines 53-54).
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached), and further in view of Yamanaka (US6094242).
Regarding claim 15, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum thickness of the lens is 6 millimeters to 8 millimeters (7mm; see fig. 1, paragraph [0059] data of table 1, thickness of the lens 210 is 7.000401 mm), an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters, and a maximum field of view of the optical system is 100° to 110° (see Sun, paragraph [0057] “The imaging angle of view is 100° to 105°, e.g., 100°, within which the user can observe a clear image”).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters.
However, Yamanaka teaches the analogous optical system (Yamanaka, abstract, the optical device includes a refractor consisting of a refracting element with half-mirror coating and a circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror, which are disposed in order from the incident side. The circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror consists of a quarter-wave plate, a half-mirror and a polarizer or cholesteric liquid crystal, which are disposed in order from the incident side), and further teaches
wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters (20 mm; see Yamanaka, col. 14, line 53, “An eye relief must be 20 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sun to have the specific eye relief as taught by Yamanaka for the purpose of enabling a spectacled user to look at the image(Yamanaka, col. 14, lines 53-54).
Regarding claim 19, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 5 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum field of view of the optical system is 100° to 110° (see Sun, paragraph [0057] “The imaging angle of view is 100° to 105°, e.g., 100°, within which the user can observe a clear image”).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 17 millimeters to 21 millimeters.
However, Yamanaka teaches the analogous optical system (Yamanaka, abstract, the optical device includes a refractor consisting of a refracting element with half-mirror coating and a circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror, which are disposed in order from the incident side. The circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror consists of a quarter-wave plate, a half-mirror and a polarizer or cholesteric liquid crystal, which are disposed in order from the incident side), and further teaches
wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters (20 mm; see Yamanaka, col. 14, line 53, “An eye relief must be 20 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sun to have the specific eye relief as taught by Yamanaka for the purpose of enabling a spectacled user to look at the image(Yamanaka, col. 14, lines 53-54).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US20240302658) in view of Song (CN108303796, English translation attached), and further in view of Yamanaka (US6094242) and Etter et al. (US20200081234).
Regarding claim 17, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum field of view of the optical system is 100° to 110° (see Sun, paragraph [0057] “The imaging angle of view is 100° to 105°, e.g., 100°, within which the user can observe a clear image”).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 17 millimeters to 21 millimeters.
However, Yamanaka teaches the analogous optical system (Yamanaka, abstract, the optical device includes a refractor consisting of a refracting element with half-mirror coating and a circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror, which are disposed in order from the incident side. The circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror consists of a quarter-wave plate, a half-mirror and a polarizer or cholesteric liquid crystal, which are disposed in order from the incident side), and further teaches
wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters (20 mm; see Yamanaka, col. 14, line 53, “An eye relief must be 20 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sun to have the specific eye relief as taught by Yamanaka for the purpose of enabling a spectacled user to look at the image(Yamanaka, col. 14, lines 53-54).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system at the maximum field of view is no less than 0.8 at a position where a spatial frequency is 15 line pairs/millimeter.
However, Etter teaches the analogous optical systems (Etter, abstract, optical systems for displaying an image are described), and further teaches
wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, paragraph [0062] “the MTF vs. spatial frequency for the optical system 500”) at the maximum field of view (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, TS 45.00 deg) is no less than 0.8 at a position where a spatial frequency is 15 line pairs/millimeter (is approximately 0.88; see fig. 4B, as described in paragraph [0062], “In FIG. 4B, the MTF vs. spatial frequency curves are plotted for 0, 25, 40, and 45 degree angles of light at the exit pupil opening 61 for both tangential (T) and sagittal (S) orientations.”; thus, a modulation transfer function value of the optical system 500 at the maximum field of view, TS 45.00 deg, is no less than 0.8 at a position where a spatial frequency is 15 line pairs/millimeter).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation transfer function of Sun to have the specific modulation transfer function value of the optical system as taught by Etter for the purpose to reduce such aberrations to provide the desirable aspects of small spot size with a large field of view (Etter, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 18, combination Sun-Song discloses the invention as described in Claim 5 and Sun further teaches wherein a maximum field of view of the optical system is 100° to 110° (see Sun, paragraph [0057] “The imaging angle of view is 100° to 105°, e.g., 100°, within which the user can observe a clear image”) and a modulation transfer function value of the optical system at the maximum field of view is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter.
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 17 millimeters to 21 millimeters.
However, Yamanaka teaches the analogous optical system (Yamanaka, abstract, the optical device includes a refractor consisting of a refracting element with half-mirror coating and a circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror, which are disposed in order from the incident side. The circularly polarized light selecting semitransparent mirror consists of a quarter-wave plate, a half-mirror and a polarizer or cholesteric liquid crystal, which are disposed in order from the incident side), and further teaches
wherein an eye relief of the optical system is 15 millimeters to 21 millimeters (20 mm; see Yamanaka, col. 14, line 53, “An eye relief must be 20 mm”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sun to have the specific eye relief as taught by Yamanaka for the purpose of enabling a spectacled user to look at the image(Yamanaka, col. 14, lines 53-54).
Sun does not explicitly disclose wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system at the maximum field of view is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter.
However, Etter teaches the analogous optical systems (Etter, abstract, optical systems for displaying an image are described), and further teaches
wherein a modulation transfer function value of the optical system (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, paragraph [0062] “the MTF vs. spatial frequency for the optical system 500”) at the maximum field of view (see Sun'906', fig. 4B, TS 45.00 deg) is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter (is approximately 0.82; see fig. 4B, as described in paragraph [0062], “In FIG. 4B, the MTF vs. spatial frequency curves are plotted for 0, 25, 40, and 45 degree angles of light at the exit pupil opening 61 for both tangential (T) and sagittal (S) orientations.”; thus, a modulation transfer function value of the optical system 500 at the maximum field of view, TS 45.00 deg, is no less than 0.7 at a position where a spatial frequency is 20 line pairs/millimeter).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modulation transfer function of Sun to have the specific modulation transfer function value of the optical system as taught by Etter for the purpose to reduce such aberrations to provide the desirable aspects of small spot size with a large field of view (Etter, paragraph [0030]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Sakai US20230280516 teaches features of instant invention, such as polarization transflective film (see Fig. 1-3 and their descriptions), and Yang et al. US20230168501 teaches features of instant invention, such as polarization transflective film (see Fig.1 and their descriptions).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571) 272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Sun, Pinping 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights