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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 11, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (WO 2020068627 A1) in view of Wong (Folded optics with birefringent reflective polarizers).
Regarding claim 1,
Richards teaches:
An optical module, comprising a first lens and a second lens, (Richards Abstract “The pancake display assembly comprises a first lens with a quarter-waveplate and a partially reflective surface, a second lens with a reflective polarizer, and a display.”) the first lens comprising a first surface and a second surface, the second lens comprising a third surface and a fourth surface, (Richards Abstract, cited above, teaches two pancake lenses, a type of lens which has two surfaces. Thus, a first and second lens with two respective surfaces is taught.) the second surface being provided adjacent to the third surface;(Richards ¶66 “As above, the polarization alignment system 180 positions the first lens 405 in optical series with the second lens 205 that is coupled to the lens housing 210 using the holding prongs 415.”
PNG
media_image1.png
628
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: Richards teaches that its two lenses are placed together in an optical series, as seen in Fig. 4 two surfaces of the lenses are adjacent to each other. It is known that these surfaces are analogous to the claims “second” and “third” surfaces that are adjacent as in the specification’s Fig. 1,
PNG
media_image2.png
630
484
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, it can be seen that the same flat side of the lenses are adjacent to each other.) the optical module further comprises a beam splitter, a first phase retarder, (Richards ¶42 “The first lens 110 includes a partial reflector 125 and a quarter-waveplate (QWP) 130. The partial reflector 125 (e.g., a 50/50 mirror) is configured to reflect a portion of light incident on its surface and transmit another portion. The QWP 130 is configured to convert circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light and vice versa.” Note: Richards teaches a partial reflector that reflects exactly half of the light so as to allow only half of the light to be transmitted, aka a beam splitter. Richards teaches a first phase retarder, in this case a quarter-waveplate (QWP). The specifications state a quarter-waveplate is a sufficient first phase retarder, ¶1151 “Here, the first phase retarder 50, for example, is a quarter-wave plate”) and a polarizing reflection element,(Richards ¶42 “The second lens 115 includes a reflective polarizer 135 configured to transmit a desired polarization state while reflecting other polarization states.”) the beam splitter is located on one aside of the first surface,(Richards ¶42, cited previously, teaches that the first lens contains the partial reflector aka beam splitter.) and the first phase retarder and the polarizing reflection element are located on either aside of the second lens;(While Richards ¶42 states the QWP, or first phase retarder, is included in the first lens, as seen in Fig. 42 it can be seen that it is in between the first and second lens. Fig. 42 also displays the polarizing reflection element on the other side of the second lens, teaching a polarizing reflection element and first phase retarder located on either side of the second lens.)
Richards does not however teach that the first and second lens have an adjustable distance between them, and that their distance satisfies the equation cited below. This is taught by Wong which teaches and the first lens is configured to translate relative to the second lens, which , satisfies: 0.05<2*(T1-T2)/D1<0.3, wherein Ti is a maximum distance from the second surface to the third surface, T2 is a minimum distance from the second surface to the third surface, and D1 is an optical effective aperture of the first lens.(Wong 2.2.3 “By providing an air space between the beamsplitter lens and the reflective polarizer lens two additional refractive surfaces are provided which can be used to balance aberrations in the optical system. Shown above is a 110deg FOV design that achieves high resolution by utilizing aspheres on both surfaces of the reflective polarizer lens, and a spherical plano-convex lens for the beamsplitter. Compared to the cemented doublet the air-space doublet can be lighter in weight and allows for adjustment of lens position which can create focus accommodation.”
PNG
media_image3.png
578
1086
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note: Wong teaches a system with two pancake lenses, one of which is a reflective polarizer lens and one is a beamsplitter, a similar configuration to the present invention which contains two lenses, one with a beamsplitter and one with a reflective polarizer. Wong teaches that the space between the lenses is adjustable, showing a diagram in Fig. 4 on scale 20mm apart, however in the Fig. 4 descrption it is clarified that the lense is adjusted specifically to 1.05mm away, teaching a precision level down to .01 of a milimeter. The specifications define ¶91 “Optionally, the first lens has a central thickness T1: 3mm<Ti<8mm; the second lens has a central thickness T2: 3mm<T2<8mm” As the percision levels of T1 and T2 in the equation are milimeter level, and the equation teaches “0.05<2*(T1-T2)”, making the lower bound 0.05 of a milimeter, teaching a precision level of 0.01 of a milimeter, the same precision level taught by Wong. As Wong teaches two lenses with an adjustable distance with 0.01 milimeter precision, the ability to set the lens distance within the defined range specified by the claim, or any other specified range with a 0.01 milimeter precision, is taught.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Richards with Wong where an optical module that contains two lenses allows the first lens to be translated relative to the second lens within the defined range which requires a .01 millimeter precision.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, by allowing the lenses to be translated relative to each other its possible to adjust for myopia or hyperopia for a user, thus by allowing for a range of movement between the lenses the optical module can be made usable for a wider range of users.
Regarding claim 2,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1,
While Richards teaches the described system with two lenses little is taught on the distance between the lenses or a range of distances. This is taught by Wong wherein the first lens is configured for a translatione in a direction away from or close to the second lens which satisfies: 0.1< 2*(T1- T2)/D1<0.2. (Wong Fig. 4 and 2.2.3, cited in claim 1, teach two lenses with an adjustable distance to a 0.01 milimeter level precision, thus the defined range above and any other range that can be accurately adjusted to with the level of precision defined by Wong is taught.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Richards with Wong where an optical module that contains two lenses allows the first lens to be translated relative to the second lens within the defined range which requires a .01 millimeter precision.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, when translating another lens relative to another it is important that the adjusting can be done to a certain degree of precision to properly space the lenses to create a consistent picture, properly adjust for myopia/hyperopia, etc… Wong suports this by allowing for lenses to be adjusted with a .01 precision, teaching the range defined by the claims and any other comprable range.
Regarding claim 3,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1,
Richards does not teach that the lenses distance between eachother can be adjusted, this is found in Wong which teaches wherein the first lens is configured forte a translation relative to the second lens by 4 mm to 5.5 mm. (Wong, Fig. 4 and 2.2.3, cited in claim 1, teach the lens position is adjustable down to a 0.01 mm prevcision, thus the ability for the first lense to be moved 4 to 5.5mm from the second lens is taught.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Richards with Wong where an optical module can translate its first lens relative to the second by 4mm to 5.5mm.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, depending on the size, thickness, and type of lens being used it may only be possible to adjust two lenses in an optical module within a certain range of distance before the picture quality decreases or becomes unreliable. Thus, being able to translate the lenses within the defined specific range, or another specific range relative to the lenses physical make up, allows for the lenses to be adjusted precisely while avoiding improperly setting them.
Regarding claim 4,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1, wherein distortion difference
Richards does not however detail the correction of myopia or hyperopia by adjusting the half-field angle of the optical module, this is found in Wong which teaches (a) "a-between a hyperopia half-field angle of the optical module and a myopia half-field angle of the optical module satisfies i-s: 0°<a<10°. (Wong 3.2 “As an example a 70-degree FOV polarized catadioptric system is shown below in figure 4. The design has 17mm of eye relief and a 32mm total track length. A lens position plot is shown for a focus range from -8 diopters to +8 diopters. This system is able to present the virtual image between infinity and a 25cm near point for users that have vision ranging from +8D hyperopia to -4D myopia. Figure 5 shows the lens position profile for the entire focus range.”
PNG
media_image3.png
578
1086
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Note: The half-field angle is an angle that is adjusted by adjusting the distance between the two lenses, and not by adjusting the angles of the lenses themselves. The specifications state ¶971 “It should be noted that whether the first lens 10 is moved in a direction close to the second lens 20 or away from the second lens 20, the maximum movable range between them is the above 4 mm to 5.5 mm. Within this range, by adjusting the position of the first lens 10 relative to the second lens 20 in the optical path structure, it is possible to achieve the adjustment of different diopters at a fixed eye-to-lens distance. [00981 In some examples of the present disclosure, a distortion difference "a" between a hyperopia half-field angle of the optical module and a near-field half-angle of the optical module is: 0°<a<10°.” The specifications clarify that the hyperopia and myopia corrections between 0 and 10 degrees are attainable within the lenses 4mm to 5.5mm distance range. As Wong teaches a much larger adjustable range of 17mm total for correcting myopia/hyperopia, with 0.01 mm percision, the ability to correct myopia/hyperopia within the 0 to 10 degree half-field angle range is taught.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Richards with Wong where the optical module can correct hyperopia/myopia by adjusting the half-field angle within 0 to 10 degrees.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, by allowing the lenses to adjust the half-field angle to correct for hyperopia/myopia a wider range of users who may have those refractive errors are able to use the device.
Regarding claim 6,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the first surface and the second surface are both aspherical; the third surface is flat or aspherical, and the fourth surface is aspherical. (Richards ¶42 “The pancake lens display assembly 100 includes a display 105, a first lens 110, and a second lens 115. One or more surfaces of the first lens 110 and/or the second lens 115 can be shaped to correct for field curvature, such as be shaped to be spherically concave (e.g., a portion of a sphere), spherically convex, planar, rotationally symmetric aspheric, a freeform shape, or some other shape that mitigates field curvature.” Note: For the two lenses in Richards optical module containing a two surfaces respectively it is taught that one or more of each lenses surfaces can be aspheric, thus teaching that all first through fourth surfaces can be aspherical.)
Regarding claim 7,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the first phase retarder and the polarizing reflection element are sequentially arranged between the second surface and the third surface. (
PNG
media_image1.png
628
890
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Note: The “second surface and third surface” refers to the surface of lens 1 and lens 2 that are adjacent to each other. As seen in Fig. 4 the QWP, or first phase retarder, and reflective polarizer are both between the second and third surface between the first and second lenses. Thus, an optical module where the first phase retarder and reflective polarizer are sequentially arranged between the second and third surfaces is taught.)
Regarding claim 11,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the optical module further comprises a display and a light emergent surface thereof configured to emit circularly polarized light or linearly polarized light; (Richards ¶42 “The display 105 includes a circular polarizer 120 that converts light emitted from the display 105 into circular polarized light. In one embodiment, the circular polarizer 120 is a film on the surface of the display 105.” Note: Richards teaches a display with a surface that emitts light, or a light emergent surface, with a circular polarizer in front to convert light into circularly polarized light.) when the light emergent surface is configured to emit- the linearly polarized light, a second phase retarder is provided between the light emergent surface and the first surface of the first lens suche that the linearly polarized light is converted into the circularly polarized light. (
PNG
media_image4.png
654
970
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: As seen in Fig. 1A, the circular polarizer is placed between the display and the first surface, referring to a surface of the first lens not facing the second lens. A circular polarizer itself is a type of phase retarder, Richards has already been shown to teach a first phase retarder in the form of a QWP, thus Richards teaches a second phase retarder between the light emergent surface and first surface as seen above in Fig. 1A. )
Regarding claim 13,
Richards teaches:
A head-mounted display, comprising: a housing; and an optical module according to claim 1 (Richards ¶3 “ A pancake lens display assembly of a head mounted display (HMD) includes a pancake lens and an electronic display. The pancake lens comprises a first lens that includes a quarter- waveplate and a partially reflective surface (e.g., a 50/50 mirror) and a second lens that includes a reflective polarizer. ” Note: Richards teaches that the described pancake lens optical module is for a head mounted display.)
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (WO 2020068627 A1) in view of Wong (Folded optics with birefringent reflective polarizers) in view of Kahara (US 20220163698 A1).
Regarding claim 5,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the first lens has a central thickness Ti; the second lens has a central thickness T2:
While Richards teaches an optical module with two lenses, that implicitly have a central thickness, nothing is said about the specific values or range the thickness of the lens can be. Detailing the possible range of central thickness of a lense that is within 3mm to 8mm is taught by Kahara wherein the lens has a central thickness Ti: 3mm<Ti<8mm; the second lens has a central thickness T2: 3mm<T2 <8mm;(Kahara ¶36 “It should be noted that in the present specification, the term “lens center C” means the center of the lens when the lens is viewed in a plan view. A lens 21 shown in FIG. 2 is a planoconvex lens. A lens 31 shown in FIG. 3 is a convex meniscus lens or a concave meniscus lens. A lens 41 shown in FIG. 4 is a biconvex lens. A lens 51 shown in FIG. 5 is a planoconcave lens. A lens 61 shown in FIG. 6 ” ¶37 “ For example, the “thickness at lens center C” is a length corresponding to d1 of FIG. 2, d2 of FIG. 3, d3 of FIG. 4, d4 of FIG. 5, and d5 of FIG. 6. If the thickness of the lens at the lens center is less than 1 mm, strength of the lens is small, with the result that the lens cannot have sufficient mechanical strength. On the other hand, if the thickness of the lens at the lens center is more than 11 mm, a light transmitting property of the lens is decreased. The thickness of the lens at the lens center is preferably not less than 1 mm and not more than 11 mm”
PNG
media_image5.png
530
232
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note: Kahara teaches multiple lenses 21, 31, etc… that thickness C at their center, or d1, d2, etc.. as seen in the lenses in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, have a center thickness “not less than 1 mm and not more than 11 mm”. Thus, a first, second, and a plurality of other lenses, that have a center thickness between 1mm and 11mm is taught. As the claims range of between 3mm and 8mm falls within the range described by Kahara it would be possible to construct a first and second within the range defined by the claims.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards with Kahara where the optical module with two lenses have the described center thickness of the defined range.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, relative to the task being performed, size of the lens, size of the lens holding container, it may be important for the lenses to fall within a specified range of acceptable center thicknesses. In this case the particular range required falls within the precision level and upper and lower bound of Kahara, thus the ability to produce lenses of a desired central thickness to allow them to function properly within their context has been shown to be done.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (WO 2020068627 A1) in view of Wong (Folded optics with birefringent reflective polarizers) and further in view of Xiong (Planar liquid crystal polarization optics for augmented reality and virtual reality: from fundamentals to applications)
Regarding claim 8,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 7, wherein the optical module further comprises a polarizing element, (Richards Fig. 4 teaches a QWP, which aside from acting as the first phase retarder also polarizes light making it a polarizing element.)
While Richards teaches an optical module with a polarizing element it does not teach that it is located inbetween a polarizing reflection element and the third surface. This is taught by Xiong which teaches an optical module further comprises a polarizing element, which is located between the polarizing reflection element and the third surface. (Xiong 4.1 “First, the s-wave passes through the half-mirror and is reflected by the reflective polarizer. Then it is reflected again by the half-mirror, which is integrated with a quarter-wave plate (not shown in the drawing). The light is converted to p-wave and passes through the reflective polarizer. It should be noted the quarter-wave plate can also be integrated onto the reflective polarizer. The optical path in between the half-mirror and the reflective polarizer is three-folded.” Fig. 10
PNG
media_image6.png
473
1049
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Note: Xiong teaches an optical module where a half-mirror lens has a quarter-wave plate, which aside from being a first phase retarder is also a polarizer, and a reflective polarizer. It is taught that the the QWP is integrated into the lens, and that when the light is reflected against the mirror lens and the QWP it becomes polarized light p-wave and passes out through the lens through the reflective polarizer. As seen in Fig. 10, which does not label the QWP, the light passes into the lense, reflects against the back surface where the QWP is located converting the light into p, then passes through the reflective polarizer. Thus, an optical module where a polarizer is inbetween a lens surface and reflective polarizer is taught.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards with Xiong where the polarizing element is located between the third surface and the polarizing reflective element.
There are seveal reasons that would motivate one to do so, an optical module may, for a number of reasons, require that some light be reflected and not passed through the lens for the user to see. By placing the polarizer between the lens and reflective polarizer one can ensure that the light will get polarized, then the unneeded light will be reflected by reflective polarizer, and will pass out through the lens as intended.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (WO 2020068627 A1) in view of Wong (Folded optics with birefringent reflective polarizers) and further in view of Xiong (Planar liquid crystal polarization optics for augmented reality and virtual reality: from fundamentals to applications) and further in view of Zuo (CN 214225588 U)
Regarding claim 9,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 8, wherein the polarizing element, the polarizing reflection element, and the first phase retarder While Richards teaches a first phase retarder, polarizing reflection element, and polarizing element, Richards does not teach that they are laminated to form a laminted film structure attatched to the third surface. This is found in Zuo which teaches wherein the polarizing element, the polarizing reflection element, and the first phase retarder are stacked to form a laminated film structure and attached to the third surface and the polarizing element is connected to the third surface. (Zuo ¶73 “It should be noted that the present invention is not limited to the material of the substrate 23, the first substrate 24 and the second substrate 25, and may be a rigid transparent material such as glass ” ¶68 “the substrate 23 has the first surface 21 and the second surface 22 disposed oppositely, the first surface 21 and the second surface 22 of the substrate 23 form an included angle, the first surface 21 of the substrate 23 is provided with a phase retardation film, a reflective polarizing film disposed close to the phase retardation film and a polarization absorbing film disposed far from the phase retardation film are stacked on the second surface 22 of the substrate 23, by arranging the reflective polarizing film and the polarizing absorption film in a laminated manner,” Note: Zuo teaches a hard, glass substrate, with multiple surfaces. It is taught that one of the surfaces can have a laminated stack of a polarizing reflector, a first phase retarder, and a polarizing element. In this case, the polarizing element is a polarizing absorption film. The laminated film stack is taught to be attached to the surface of the substrate. The substrate is a material which the light will pass through and is made of glass, and will have the described laminated stack attached to it.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards with Zuo where the polarizing element, polarizing reflective element, and first phase retarder are stacked to form a laminated film attached to the third surface.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, a laminated film stack provides a secure and stable means to attach needed filters and structures to an optical module, allowing light to always pass through needed structures/filters on its path.
Claims 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards (WO 2020068627 A1) in view of Wong (Folded optics with birefringent reflective polarizers) and further in view of Gao (US 10890776 B1)
Regarding claim 10,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 1, wherein the beam splitter has a reflectivity
While Richards teaches an optical module with a beam splitter that splits light 50/50, however it does not detail that its beam splitter can split light with a slightly larger range around 50/50, with a 3% wiggle room of 47% to 53%. This can be found in Gao which teaches wherein the beam splitter has a reflectivity of 47% to 53%. (Gao Col. 13 Line 62 “The pancake lens subassembly 806 may include a plano-convex lens having a partial (e.g. 50%+−10%) reflective coating on its convex side facing the polarization stacks 804A,” Note: Gao teaches that a partial reflector, or beam splitter, that reflects 50% of the light, which can alternatively be + or – 10% of the light, is attached to one side of a pancake lens. Thus, the ability for the beam splitter to have a reflectivity from 47% to 53% is taught as Gao teaches a beam splitter that can have the reflectivity of 40% to 60%.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Richards with Gao where the beam splitter has a reflectivity within the described range.
There are several reasons that would motivate one to do so, if more or less light within a specified range is desired by the user having a beam splitter with a flexibility in the range of light it can reflect provides a means to do so.
Regarding claim 12,
Richards teaches:
The optical module according to claim 10, wherein the beam splitter is attached to the first surface; or, the beam splitter is located between the light emergent surface of the display and the first surface. (
PNG
media_image4.png
654
970
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Note: As seen in Fig. 1A beam splitter, or partial reflector, labelled 125, is attatched to the first surface, the surface of the first lens that is not next to the second lens.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAN GREGORY HAKALA whose telephone number is (571)272-7863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Poon can be reached at (571) 270-0728. 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.
/ALAN GREGORY HAKALA/Examiner, Art Unit 2617
/KING Y POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights