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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/878,431 filed on 12/23/2024 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 e M.P.E.P. 210, 200, 214, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application CN202311133538.5 (People’s Republic of China).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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, 2, 6-8, 10-12, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 114236864 A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), and further in view of He (CN 216310431 U)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shi discloses a folded optical path lens, in at least Figures 1 and 2, characterized by comprising:
a first lens (2 "first lens", Figure 1), the first lens (2 "first lens") having a first surface (21 "first surface", Figure 1) and a second surface (22 "second surface", Figure 1) disposed oppositely (Figure 1), the first surface (21 "first surface") being a convex surface (Figure 1 shows that 21 "first surface" is a convex surface); and
a beam-splitting film ("light splitting element"), the beam-splitting film ("light splitting element") being disposed on the first surface (21 "first surface", page 4, paragraph 14 of translation states "one side of the first lens 2 away from the second lens 3 is provided with a light splitting element").
However, Shi does not disclose wherein a difference between a reflectance value and a transmittance value of the beam-splitting film is less than or equal to 20%, and the beam-splitting film comprises a plurality of optical coating layers stacked together, wherein the plurality of optical coating layers comprise at least one non- metallic transparent coating and at least one metallic layer.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein a difference between a reflectance value and a transmittance value of the beam-splitting film is less than or equal to 20% (column 23, paragraph 3 states “the partial reflector may have an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a pre-determined or desired plurality of wavelengths and may have an average optical transmittance of a least 30% in the pre-determined or desired plurality of wavelengths”, therefore the difference between the reflectance of 30% and the transmittance of 30% is 0 which is less than 20%).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by a difference between a reflectance value and a transmittance value of the beam-splitting film is less than or equal to 20%, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to improve efficiency while reflecting and transmitting the light.
He teaches the beam-splitting film comprises a plurality of optical coating layers stacked together (page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the light splitting film layer 10 may include a first light splitting film layer, a second light splitting film layer and a third light splitting film layer, namely the first light splitting film layer, the second light splitting film layer and the third light splitting film layer can be alternately laminated to form a light splitting film layer”), wherein the plurality of optical coating layers comprise at least one non- metallic transparent coating (“first light splitting film layer”, “second light splitting film layer”) and at least one metallic layer (“third light splitting film layer”, page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the material of the first light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, lanthanum oxide, zirconium oxide and hafnium oxide. the material of the second light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of silicon oxide, magnesium fluoride, aluminium oxide and magnesium oxide. the material of the third light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of metal copper, cadmium, nickel, chromium, silver and gold”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by the beam-splitting film comprises a plurality of optical coating layers stacked together, wherein the plurality of optical coating layers comprise at least one non- metallic transparent coating and at least one metallic layer, as taught by He, in order to improve efficiency in reflectance and transmittance.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and Shi further discloses
a quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate", Figure 2), the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") being disposed on a side of the first lens (2 "first lens") away from the convex surface (Figure 2 shows that 33 "quarter-wave plate" is disposed on 22 "second surface", where the convex surface is on 21 “first surface”); and
a reflective polarizing film (34 "polarization reflection film", Figure 2), the reflective polarizing film (34 "polarization reflection film") being disposed on a side of the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") away from the first lens (2 "first lens", Figure 2 shows that 34 "polarization reflection film" is disposed on 33 "quarter-wave plate" on a side away from 22 "second surface", which is on 2 “first lens”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Shi does not disclose a material of the metallic layer comprises at least one of silver, aluminum, chromium, titanium, platinum, silver-gold alloy, silver-indium alloy, and indium-tin alloy; a material of the non-metallic transparent coating comprises at least one of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, niobium pentoxide, aluminum oxide, tantalum dioxide, hafnium dioxide, magnesium fluoride, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, zirconium dioxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, and cerium oxide.
He teaches a material of the metallic layer (“third light splitting film layer”) comprises at least one of silver, aluminum, chromium, titanium, platinum, silver-gold alloy, silver-indium alloy, and indium-tin alloy (page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the material of the third light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of metal copper, cadmium, nickel, chromium, silver and gold”); a material of the non-metallic transparent coating (“first light splitting film layer”, “second light splitting film layer”) comprises at least one of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, niobium pentoxide, aluminum oxide, tantalum dioxide, hafnium dioxide, magnesium fluoride, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, zirconium dioxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, and cerium oxide (page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the material of the first light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, lanthanum oxide, zirconium oxide and hafnium oxide. the material of the second light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of silicon oxide, magnesium fluoride, aluminium oxide and magnesium oxide”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by a material of the metallic layer comprises at least one of silver, aluminum, chromium, titanium, platinum, silver-gold alloy, silver-indium alloy, and indium-tin alloy; a material of the non-metallic transparent coating comprises at least one of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, niobium pentoxide, aluminum oxide, tantalum dioxide, hafnium dioxide, magnesium fluoride, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, zirconium dioxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, and cerium oxide, in order to improve efficiency in reflectance and transmittance.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 6, however Shi does not disclose a thickness of the metallic layer is 1-50 nanometers, and a thickness of the non-metallic transparent coating is 1-250 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a metallic layer and a non-metallic transparent coating such that a thickness of the metallic layer is 1-50 nanometers, and a thickness of the non-metallic transparent coating is 1-250 nanometers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Shi does not disclose wherein an outermost optical coating layer of the beam-splitting film is the non-metallic transparent coating.
He teaches wherein an outermost optical coating layer of the beam-splitting film is the non-metallic transparent coating (“first light splitting film layer”, “second light splitting film layer”, page 5, paragraph 5 of translation).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by wherein an outermost optical coating layer of the beam-splitting film is the non-metallic transparent coating, as taught by He, in order to improve efficiency in reflectance and transmittance.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Shi further discloses a second lens (3 "second lens", Figure 1), the second lens (3 "second lens") having a third surface (31 "third surface", Figure 1) and a fourth surface (32 "fourth surface", Figure 1), the third surface (31 "third surface") being disposed close to the second surface (22 “second surface”, Figure 1), the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") being disposed between the first lens (2 “first lens”) and the second lens (3 “second lens”, Figure 2 shows that 33 "quarter-wave plate" is disposed between 22 "second surface" and 31 "third surface"), and the reflective polarizing film (34 "polarization reflection film") being disposed on a side of the second lens (3 “second lens”) away from the first lens (2 “first lens”, Figure 2 shows that 34 "polarization reflection film" is disposed between 22 "second surface" and 31 "third surface" away from 2 “first lens”).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Shi further discloses
a third lens (4 "third lens", Figure 1), the third lens (4 "third lens") being disposed on a side of the first lens (2 “first lens”) close to the second surface (22 “second surface”, Figure 1 shows that 4 "third lens" is disposed on a side of 2 "first lens" close to 22 "second surface"), the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") being disposed on a side of the first lens (2 “first lens”) close to the third lens (4 “third lens”, Figure 2 shows that 33 "quarter-wave plate" is disposed between 22 "second surface" and 31 "third surface" which is close to 4 “third lens”), and the reflective polarizing film (34 "polarization reflection film") being disposed on a side of the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") close to the third lens (4 “third lens”, Figure 2 shows that 34 "polarization reflection film" is disposed on 33 "quarter-wave plate" between 22 "second surface" and 31 "third surface", which is close to 4 "third lens");
a fourth lens (5 "fourth lens", Figure 1), the fourth lens (5 "fourth lens") being disposed on a side of the beam-splitting film ("light splitting element") away from the first surface (21 “first surface”) of the first lens (2 “first lens”, Figure 1); an anti-reflection coating ("anti-reflection film"), the anti-reflection coating ("anti-reflection film") being disposed on a surface of the fourth lens (5 “fourth lens”) away from the first lens (2 “first lens”, page 7, paragraph7 of translation states "the eighth surface 52 are provided with an anti-reflection film").
Regarding claim 12, Shi discloses an optical imaging system, in at least Figures 1 and 2, comprising a display screen (1 "display", Figure 1) and a folded optical path lens (see examiner’s markup of Figure 1), the folded optical path lens (see examiner’s markup of Figure 1) being located on a light-emitting side of the display screen (1 “display”, page 6, paragraph 5 of translation states "the display 1 is used for emitting light of the presentation picture. the light beam is set as circularly polarized light or elliptical polarized light, the light can form the corresponding folded light path in the optical module, and through the first lens 2, the second lens 3. the third lens 4 and the fourth lens 5 imaging at the position of the human eye 6", see examiner's markup of Figure 1), and a ray emitted by the display screen (1 “display”) forming an image after passing through the folded optical path lens (page 6, paragraph 5 of translation states "the display 1 is used for emitting light of the presentation picture. the light beam is set as circularly polarized light or elliptical polarized light, the light can form the corresponding folded light path in the optical module, and through the first lens 2, the second lens 3. the third lens 4 and the fourth lens 5 imaging at the position of the human eye 6, so as to satisfy the imaging requirement of the optical module in the present disclosure", page 10, paragraph 9 of translation states "After the user wears the head-mounted display device, the light emitted from the fourth lens 5 can be imaged at the position where the human eye 6 is located, so that the human eye 6 observes the picture", see examiner’s markup of Figure 1),
wherein the folded optical path lens (see examiner's markup of Figure 1) comprises:
a first lens (2 "first lens", Figure 1), the first lens (2 "first lens") having a first surface (21 "first surface", Figure 1) and a second surface (22 "second surface", Figure 1) disposed oppositely (Figure 1), the first surface (21 "first surface") being a convex surface (Figure 1 shows that 21 "first surface" is a convex surface); and
a beam-splitting film ("light splitting element"), the beam-splitting film ("light splitting element") being disposed on the first surface (21 "first surface", page 4, paragraph 14 of translation states "one side of the first lens 2 away from the second lens 3 is provided with a light splitting element").
Below is an examiner’s markup of Figure 1 of Shi pointing out a folded optical path lens.
PNG
media_image1.png
942
982
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Shi does not disclose wherein a difference between a reflectance value and a transmittance value of the beam-splitting film is less than or equal to 20%, and the beam-splitting film comprises a plurality of optical coating layers stacked together, wherein the plurality of optical coating layers comprise at least one non- metallic transparent coating and at least one metallic layer.
Ouderkirk teaches wherein a difference between a reflectance value and a transmittance value of the beam-splitting film is less than or equal to 20% (column 23, paragraph 3 states “the partial reflector may have an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a pre-determined or desired plurality of wavelengths and may have an average optical transmittance of a least 30% in the pre-determined or desired plurality of wavelengths”, therefore the difference between the reflectance of 30% and the transmittance of 30% is 0 which is less than 20%).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by a difference between a reflectance value and a transmittance value of the beam-splitting film is less than or equal to 20%, as taught by Ouderkirk, in order to improve efficiency while reflecting and transmitting the light.
He teaches the beam-splitting film comprises a plurality of optical coating layers stacked together (page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the light splitting film layer 10 may include a first light splitting film layer, a second light splitting film layer and a third light splitting film layer, namely the first light splitting film layer, the second light splitting film layer and the third light splitting film layer can be alternately laminated to form a light splitting film layer”), wherein the plurality of optical coating layers comprise at least one non- metallic transparent coating (“first light splitting film layer”, “second light splitting film layer”) and at least one metallic layer (“third light splitting film layer”, page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the material of the first light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, lanthanum oxide, zirconium oxide and hafnium oxide. the material of the second light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of silicon oxide, magnesium fluoride, aluminium oxide and magnesium oxide. the material of the third light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of metal copper, cadmium, nickel, chromium, silver and gold”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by the beam-splitting film comprises a plurality of optical coating layers stacked together, wherein the plurality of optical coating layers comprise at least one non- metallic transparent coating and at least one metallic layer, as taught by He, in order to improve efficiency in reflectance and transmittance.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 12 and Shi further discloses wherein the folded optical path lens further comprises:
a quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate", Figure 2), the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") being disposed on a side of the first lens (2 "first lens") away from the convex surface (Figure 2 shows that 33 "quarter-wave plate" is disposed on 22 "second surface", where the convex surface is on 21 “first surface”); and
a reflective polarizing film (34 "polarization reflection film", Figure 2), the reflective polarizing film (34 "polarization reflection film") being disposed on a side of the quarter-wave plate (33 "quarter-wave plate") away from the first lens (2 "first lens", Figure 2 shows that 34 "polarization reflection film" is disposed on 33 "quarter-wave plate" on a side away from 22 "second surface", which is on 2 “first lens”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Shi does not disclose wherein a material of the metallic layer comprises at least one of silver, aluminum, chromium, titanium, platinum, silver-gold alloy, silver-indium alloy, and indium-tin alloy; a material of the non-metallic transparent coating comprises at least one of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, niobium pentoxide, aluminum oxide, tantalum dioxide, hafnium dioxide, magnesium fluoride, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, zirconium dioxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, and cerium oxide.
He teaches a material of the metallic layer (“third light splitting film layer”) comprises at least one of silver, aluminum, chromium, titanium, platinum, silver-gold alloy, silver-indium alloy, and indium-tin alloy (page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the material of the third light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of metal copper, cadmium, nickel, chromium, silver and gold”); a material of the non-metallic transparent coating (“first light splitting film layer”, “second light splitting film layer”) comprises at least one of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, niobium pentoxide, aluminum oxide, tantalum dioxide, hafnium dioxide, magnesium fluoride, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, zirconium dioxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, and cerium oxide (page 5, paragraph 5 of translation states “the material of the first light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of titanium oxide, tantalum oxide, lanthanum oxide, zirconium oxide and hafnium oxide. the material of the second light splitting film layer at least comprises at least one of silicon oxide, magnesium fluoride, aluminium oxide and magnesium oxide”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the folded optical path lens of Shi modified by a material of the metallic layer comprises at least one of silver, aluminum, chromium, titanium, platinum, silver-gold alloy, silver-indium alloy, and indium-tin alloy; a material of the non-metallic transparent coating comprises at least one of titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, niobium pentoxide, aluminum oxide, tantalum dioxide, hafnium dioxide, magnesium fluoride, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, zirconium dioxide, lanthanum oxide, praseodymium oxide, and cerium oxide, in order to improve efficiency in reflectance and transmittance.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Shi does not disclose wherein a thickness of the metallic layer is 1-50 nanometers, and a thickness of the non-metallic transparent coating is 1-250 nanometers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize a metallic layer and a non-metallic transparent coating such that a thickness of the metallic layer is 1-50 nanometers, and a thickness of the non-metallic transparent coating is 1-250 nanometers, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 12 and Shi further discloses a head-mounted display device (“head-mounted display device”), comprising an optical imaging system of claim 12 ("the light emitted from the fourth lens 5 can be imaged at the position of the human eye 6 of the head-mounted display device", page 10, paragraph 9 of translation states "the head-mounted display device through the display 1 to emit picture light. finally emitted by the fourth lens 5. After the user wears the head-mounted display device, the light emitted from the fourth lens 5 can be imaged at the position where the human eye 6 is located, so that the human eye 6 observes the picture").
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi (CN 114236864 A)(see attached machine translation), in view of Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), in view of He (CN 216310431 U)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Wang (US 20230168423 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Shi does not disclose wherein the display screen is a micro OLED display screen.
Wang teaches wherein the display screen is a micro OLED display screen (paragraph 0046 states "The micro-organic light emitting diode (Micro-OLED) display is to miniaturize a light-emitting unit of an organic light-emitting diode, so that more pixels may be arranged in a limited size, and a definition of a display screen is improved").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical imaging system of Shi modified by wherein the display screen is a micro OLED display screen, as taught by Wang, in order to improve the definition of the display screen.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 9, and 15-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Shi does not disclose wherein when a ray is incident on the folded optical path lens at an angle less than or equal to 40°, a difference between transmittance values of s-polarized light and p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%, and a difference between reflectance values of the s-polarized light and the p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%.
Shi (CN 114236864 A), Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), He (CN 216310431 U), Wang (US 20230168423 A1), and Chen (CN 215494358 U), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein when a ray is incident on the folded optical path lens at an angle less than or equal to 40°, a difference between transmittance values of s-polarized light and p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%, and a difference between reflectance values of the s-polarized light and the p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%, among other claim limitations.
Claims 4 and 5 depend on claim 3, so they are allowable for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Shi does not disclose wherein an absorption rate of the beam-splitting film for visible light is less than or equal to 25%.
Shi (CN 114236864 A), Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), He (CN 216310431 U), Wang (US 20230168423 A1), and Chen (CN 215494358 U), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein an absorption rate of the beam-splitting film for visible light is less than or equal to 25%, among other claim limitations.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Shi, Ouderkirk, and He disclose all the limitations of claim 12, however Shi does not disclose wherein when a ray is incident on the folded optical path lens at an angle less than or equal to 40°, a difference between transmittance values of s-polarized light and p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%, and a difference between reflectance values of the s-polarized light and the p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%.
Shi (CN 114236864 A), Ouderkirk (US 9557568 B1), He (CN 216310431 U), Wang (US 20230168423 A1), and Chen (CN 215494358 U), either singularly or in combination, do not disclose or suggest wherein when a ray is incident on the folded optical path lens at an angle less than or equal to 40°, a difference between transmittance values of s-polarized light and p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%, and a difference between reflectance values of the s-polarized light and the p-polarized light of the incident ray of the folded optical path lens is less than or equal to 20%, among other claim limitations.
Claims 16 and 17 depend on claim 15, so they are allowable for the same reasons.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Chen (CN 215494358 U)(see attached machine translation) discloses a folded optical path lens including a light splitting film, a quarter-wave plate, and a first polarizing means.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 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 publiShid or unpubliShid applications may be obtained from Patent Center. UnpubliShid 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights