DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1–9, 11, 12, 14, 20, 22, 24, 26, 34, and 36–38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,054,622 to Gollier et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0081234 to Etter et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Gollier discloses (e.g., Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and their descriptions) an apparatus comprising: a catadioptric lens 100 configured to direct light from a display 104 to an eye of a user (e.g., eyebox 108; claim 1 of Gollier), the catadioptric lens comprising: a catadioptric folder configured to fold an optical path of the catadioptric lens, the catadioptric folder comprising: a first surface M-1/112 comprising a semi-reflective surface; a second surface comprising a reflective polarizer surface M-2/116, the second surface opposite to the first surface (Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 5); and a retarder 216 between the first surface and the second surface (Figs. 2, 4, and 5), the retarder configured to convert a polarization of the light in a path between the first surface and the second surface (e.g., col. 3, lines 11–16).
Gollier does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second surfaces are configured such that, over at least 10% of the catadioptric folder, an inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder is monotonically decreasing with a distance from a central axis of the catadioptric lens.
Etter discloses a catadioptric or folded optical system, and teaches suitable curvatures for the partial reflector and reflective polarizer components, such that over at least 10% of the catadioptric folder, an inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder is monotonically decreasing with a distance from a central axis of the catadioptric lens (e.g., at least paragraph [0002] and Fig. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Gollier such that, over at least 10% of the catadioptric folder, an inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder is monotonically decreasing with a distance from a central axis of the catadioptric lens, as suggested by Etter, as a suitable configuration for a catadioptric or folded optical system, where Gollier appears silent regarding those further details, and Etter discloses a suitable configuration (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder at a particular distance from the central axis is based on a distance between a first point and a second point, wherein the first point comprises a point on the first surface at the particular distance from the central axis, wherein the second point comprises a point on the second surface at the particular distance from the central axis, wherein the central axis, the first point and the second point are located in the same geometrical plane (e.g., Fig. 1A of Etter).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder at a particular distance from the central axis is based on a distance between a first point and a second point, wherein the second point comprises a point on the second surface at the particular distance from the central axis, wherein the first point comprises a point of intersection between the first surface and a normal to the second surface at the second point (e.g., Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein a first inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder at a first distance from the central axis is longer than a second inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder at a second distance from the central axis, the first distance is shorter than the second distance (e.g., Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein a Peripheral Eye Relief (PER) of the catadioptric lens at a particular distance from the central axis of the catadioptric lens is shorter than a Central Eye Relief (CER) of the catadioptric lens at the central axis of the catadioptric lens (e.g., Fig. 5 of Gollier).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the first and second surfaces are configured such that an optical path length inside the catadioptric folder, over at least 10% of the catadioptric folder, is monotonically decreasing with the distance from the central axis (e.g., Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the first and second surfaces are configured such that a focal length of the catadioptric lens, over at least 10% of the catadioptric folder, is monotonically decreasing with the distance from the central axis (e.g., Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the first and second surfaces are configured such that a number of Pixels Per Degree (PPD) of the catadioptric lens, over at least 10% of the catadioptric folder, is monotonically decreasing with the distance from the central axis (e.g., Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter, noting the symmetry described in paragraph [0050]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the catadioptric lens comprises one or more biconic optical surfaces or freeform optical surfaces, such that there are two mutually orthogonal planes which include the central axis of the lens, and the lens has a symmetry relative to any of the two mutually orthogonal planes (e.g., paragraphs [0030] and [0050] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the first surface is configured to reflect light of a first-handedness circular polarization from a first direction into light of a second-handedness circular polarization in a second direction, wherein the first direction is from the second surface to the first surface and the second direction is from the first surface to the second surface, the second-handedness circular polarization is orthogonal to the first-handedness circular polarization, wherein the second surface is configured to reflect light of a first linear polarization from the second direction to the first direction and to transfer light of a second linear polarization in the second direction, the second linear polarization is orthogonal to the first linear polarization, wherein the retarder is configured to convert the light of the first linear polarization into the light of the first-handedness circular polarization in the first direction, and to convert the light of the second-handedness circular polarization into the light of the second linear polarization in the second direction (e.g., Fig. 2 of Goller; paragraphs [0033] and [0047]–[0051] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the first surface is configured to transfer light from the second direction having the first-handedness circular polarization, and wherein the retarder is configured to convert the light from the second direction having the first-handedness circular polarization into the light of the first linear polarization in the second direction (e.g., Fig. 2 of Goller; paragraphs [0033] and [0047]–[0051] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the catadioptric folder comprises a segmented dioptric adjuster between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the segmented dioptric adjuster is configured to apply a plurality of diopter adjustments to a respective plurality of segments of the optical path, wherein the plurality of diopter adjustments comprise at least first and second different diopter adjustments (e.g., col. 7, lines 24–39 of Gollier).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein a cutting line of the catadioptric lens is external to a central nasal rotation catadioptric box enclosing a folded portion of a chief ray optical path of peripheral vision folded between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the chief ray optical path is associated with a maximal nasal rotation peripheral sensation angle (e.g., Fig. 2 of Goller; paragraphs [0033] and [0047]–[0051] of Etter; Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein a cutting line of the catadioptric lens is external to side temporal rotation catadioptric box enclosing a folded portion of a maximal-rotation optical path folded between the first surface and the second surface, wherein the maximal-rotation optical path is associated with a maximal temporal rotation peripheral sensation angle (e.g., Fig. 2 of Goller; paragraphs [0033] and [0047]–[0051] of Etter; Fig. 1A and paragraph [0002] of Etter).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the catadioptric lens comprises a first lens and a second lens, wherein the semi-reflective surface comprises a surface of the first lens, and the reflective polarizer surface comprises a surface of the second lens (e.g., Fig. 5 of Gollier; Fig. 1A of Etter).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the second surface comprises a center surface portion and a side surface portion, wherein the side surface portion has a concave shape in a direction towards the eye, and the center surface portion has a concave shape or a convex shape in the direction towards the eye (e.g., Fig. 5 of Gollier; Fig. 1A of Etter).
Regarding Claim 34, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein reflectivity or transmissivity of the first surface is based on at least one of a first angle of incidence of light from the display with respect to the first surface, or a second angle of incidence of light from the second surface to the first surface with respect to the first surface (e.g., Fig. 5 of Gollier; Fig. 1A of Etter).
Regarding Claim 36, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the catadioptric lens is configured to provide a mixed-reality Field of View (FoV), the mixed-reality FoV comprising a first FoV and a second FoV, the second FoV is adjacent to the first FoV, wherein the catadioptric lens is configured to direct to the eye light of an image from the display in the first FoV, and to direct to the eye a real image in the second FoV, wherein a transition area between the first FoV and the second FoV is configured to provide the mixed-reality FoV with substantially zero obstruction (e.g., col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 21 of Gollier).
Regarding Claim 37, Claim 37 recites similar features as Claim 1 and would have been obvious in view of Gollier and Etter as outlined above with respect to Claim 1; and Claim 37 further recites a Head Mounted Display (HMD) comprising: a display; and a controller to control images to be displayed by the display, which would have been obvious in view of at last col. 8, line 64 to col. 9, line 21 of Gollier.
Regarding Claim 38, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the inter-surface distance of the catadioptric folder at a particular distance from the central axis is based on a distance between a first point and a second point, wherein the first point comprises a point on the first surface at the particular distance from the central axis, wherein the second point comprises a point on the second surface at the particular distance from the central axis, wherein the central axis, the first point and the second point are located in the same geometrical plane (e.g., Fig. 1A of Etter).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier and Etter, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0028715 to Kato et al.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Gollier and Etter does not explicitly disclose wherein the catadioptric folder comprises a Diffractive Optical Element (DOE) between the first surface and the second surface.
Kato discloses a catadioptric system, and teaches that a DOE may be optionally included (e.g., paragraph [0093])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Gollier and Etter such that the catadioptric folder comprises a Diffractive Optical Element (DOE) between the first surface and the second surface, as disclosed by Kato, as a suitable configuration (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier and Etter, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0018955 to Ciou et al.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination of Gollier and Etter does not explicitly disclose wherein the catadioptric folder is formed by a single lens, wherein the semi-reflective surface comprises a first surface of the single lens, the reflective polarizer surface comprises a second surface of the single lens opposite to the first surface of the single lens, wherein the retarder comprises a retarder layer between the semi-reflective surface and the reflective polarizer surface.
Ciou discloses a catadioptric system for a wearable display, and teaches that the catadioptric system may be formed of a single lens, including surfaces S1 and S2, in order to achieve a thinner device (e.g., paragraphs [0024]–[0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Gollier and Etter such that the catadioptric folder is formed by a single lens, wherein the semi-reflective surface comprises a first surface of the single lens, the reflective polarizer surface comprises a second surface of the single lens opposite to the first surface of the single lens, wherein the retarder comprises a retarder layer between the semi-reflective surface and the reflective polarizer surface, as suggested by Ciou, in order to achieve a thinner device.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier and Etter, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0106173 to Rabner.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination of Gollier and Etter does not explicitly disclose the apparatus of claim 1 further comprising a central lens configured to direct light from a first display to the eye of the user, and a peripheral lens configured to direct light from a second display to the eye of the user, wherein at least one of the central lens or the peripheral lens comprises the catadioptric lens.
Rabner discloses a head mounted display system, and teaches a central lens configured to direct light from a first display to the eye of the user, and a peripheral lens configured to direct light from a second display to the eye of the user, in order to achieve greater functionality of the device (e.g., Fig. 1 and its description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Gollier and Etter to further include a central lens configured to direct light from a first display to the eye of the user, and a peripheral lens configured to direct light from a second display to the eye of the user, wherein at least one of the central lens or the peripheral lens comprises the catadioptric lens, as suggested by Rabner, in order to achieve greater functionality of the device.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier and Etter, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0319388 to Ambur et al.
Regarding Claim 32, the combination of Gollier and Etter would have rendered obvious wherein the catadioptric lens comprises a first lens and a second lens, wherein the retarder is between the first lens and the second lens (e.g., Figs. 2, 4, and 5 of Gollier; Fig. 1A of Etter).
However, the combination of Gollier and Etter does not explicitly disclose wherein the retarder comprises folded or corrugated edges between inner surfaces of the first lens and the second lens.
Ambur discloses a retarder may include folded or corrugated edges 1611 to facilitate smoothing and correcting for surface roughness (e.g., paragraphs [0086]–[0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Gollier and Etter such that the retarder comprises folded or corrugated edges between inner surfaces of the first lens and the second lens, as suggested by Ambur, in order to facilitate smoothing and correcting for surface roughness.
Regarding Claim 33, the combination of Gollier, Etter, and Ambur would have rendered obvious wherein the catadioptric lens comprises a first lens and a second lens, wherein the retarder is between the first lens and the second lens (e.g., Figs. 2, 4, and 5 of Gollier; Fig. 1A of Etter), and wherein the retarder comprises radial cuts on edges of the retarder, the radial cuts are bended between inner surfaces of the first lens and the second lens (e.g., paragraphs [0086]–[0087] of Ambur).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights