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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/925,701 filed on October 24, 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated January 22, 2025 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first and second optical systems disposed proximate to one another, each of the first and second optical systems being an optical system of claim 1” of claim 8 and “first and second optical systems disposed proximate to one another, each of the first and second optical systems being an optical system of claim 9” of claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). In particular, there are no drawings presented which depict “the emitted image being transmitted by the reflective polarizer after it is first reflected by the reflective polarizer” occurring twice in one system. Nor are there any depictions of displays configured to display a virtual image to a viewer having two optical systems next to one another. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, the limitation “first and second optical systems disposed proximate to one another” is indefinite because there is no guidance in the specification regarding the meaning of “proximate” and this could take at least two, extremely disparate meanings. In one instance, the applicant could have been referring to a system where the first and second optical systems are proximate to one another in sequence such that the emitted image being transmitted by the reflective polarizer after it is first reflected by the reflective polarizer occurs twice in the optical path from the display to the eye similar to Fig. 11 of Evans et al. US 2009/0290079. Given that other optical stacks, like Fig. 2 of the instant application, were arranged in sequence, this is a plausible but unverified guess. Alternatively, “proximate” could have been referring to a pair of left-eye and right-eye displays, similar to the binoculars of Fig. 24C of the instant application, but with displays therein (which are not present in Fig. 24C or the description thereof). The examiner could not find anything in the body of the specification that would disambiguate between these disparate meanings.
To overcome this rejection the applicant would need to point out and explain where unambiguous support for one of these two meanings can be found in the specification as filed and amend the claim replacing “proximate” with the supported configuration. Alternatively, claims 8 and 15 could be canceled to overcome both this rejection and the drawing objection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 and 9-14 are allowed.
Claims 8 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Reference will be made to Mertz et al. US 6,400,493 B1 (hereafter Mertz), Phillps et al. 2009/0116214, Togino US 5,659,430 and Tanijiri US 6,266,194 as the closest prior art references.
Regarding claim 1, Mertz teaches (Fig. 2) “An optical system (folded optical assembly 100) substantially centered on an optical axis (see Fig. 2 all of the optical elements other than 119 and 120 are substantially centered on an optical axis between 121 and 111, in that they are not depicted or discussed as being off-axis in any way) and comprising:
a display panel (display screen 121) configured to emit an image (e.g. col. 1 lines 17-21: “The image seen by each eye is generated on a display screen.”), the optical system configured to display a virtual image of the emitted image emitted to a viewer (e.g. col. 1 lines 17-21: “Head-mounted computer displays may be viewed as "eye glasses" that are worn by the user to view images created by a computer or other image source. The image seen by each eye is generated on a display screen having a two dimensional array of pixels.”);
an optical lens (lens 116) disposed between (see Fig. 2 116 is between 117 and 114) a partial reflector (beam splitter 117, col. 4 lines 31-35: “beam splitter 117, which is constructed from a partially reflective coating”) and a reflective polarizer (beam splitter 114 col. 4 lines 27-29: “beam splitter 114, which is constructed from a partially reflective” and claim 4: “wherein said partially reflective coating of one of said first and second concave-convex lenses comprises a material having a reflectivity that depends on the direction of linear polarization of light striking said reflective coating.” Thus 114 is a reflective polarizer because it reflects light of one linear polarization and transmits light of the other linear polarization and thus reflectively polarizes the incoming light), the partial reflector having an average optical reflectance… in a desired plurality of wavelengths (claim 4: “wherein said partially reflective coating of one of said first and second concave-convex lenses comprises a material having a reflectivity that depends on the direction of linear polarization of light striking said reflective coating.” Thus 117 reflects light of one linear polarization for light in the visible range in which the HMD operates), the reflective polarizer configured to substantially transmit light having a first polarization state and substantially reflect light having an orthogonal second polarization state (claim 4: “wherein said partially reflective coating of one of said first and second concave-convex lenses comprises a material having a reflectivity that depends on the direction of linear polarization of light striking said reflective coating.” Thus 114 substantially transmits a first linear polarization and substantially reflects an orthogonal linear polarization.), the reflective polarizer curved about two orthogonal axes (col. 4 line 27: "spherical beam splitter 114" see also Fig. 2 a spherical surface is convex about orthogonal first and second axes)… and
a quarter wave retarder substantially centered on the optical axis (either ¼ wave plate 115 or 118), the emitted image being transmitted by the reflective polarizer after it is first reflected by the reflective polarizer (see light path from the display to 24 where it is reflected and then from 22 back through 24 on to the eye in Fig. 1. This same path occurs in Fig. 2).”
However, Mertz fails to explicitly teach “the partial reflector having an average optical reflectance of at least 30% in a desired plurality of wavelengths…
the reflective polarizer being substantially optically uniaxial at at least one location of the reflective polarizer.”
However, both 114 and 117 in Mertz are reflective polarizers.
Phillips teaches that use of an APF film as the reflective polarizing film in a recycling display (see paragraph [0029]. This is the same film used in the instant application and thus has the same properties.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an APF film as the reflective polarizing partial reflectors of Mertz because Mertz does not specify the choice of a particular film, and Phillips teaches that using APF film for recycling, increases in light output in the range of 7.8% to 15% were measured (paragraph [0030]).
However, Mertz also fails to teach “the reflective polarizer… disposed on a major surface of the optical lens.”
Togino teaches “An optical system (Figs. 5 or 6) substantially centered on an optical axis (the optical axis of Figs. 5 or 6) and comprising:
a display panel configured to emit an image (image surface 4), the optical system configured to display a virtual image of the emitted image emitted to a viewer (col. 1 lines 7-10: “a head- or face-mounted visual display apparatus”);
an optical lens (lens L2 in Fig. 5 or lens L in Fig. 6) disposed between a partial reflector (3 a second semitransparent reflecting surface) and a [second partial reflector] (2 a first semitransparent reflecting surface)
the [second partial reflector] curved about two orthogonal axes (see Figs. 5 and 6, given that the aspherical surfaces are rotationally symmetric see col. 12 line 10, one of ordinary skill in the art would know that the surfaces with a single curvature radius and no aspheric coefficients are spherical surfaces and thus curved about two orthogonal axes) and disposed on a major surface of the optical lens (2 is disposed on a major surface of L2 or L),
the emitted image being transmitted by the reflective polarizer after it is first reflected by the reflective polarizer (see Figs. 5 and 6, display light reflects off of 2 before it is transmitted through 2.).”
Tanijiri teaches “An optical system (Fig. 8) substantially centered on an optical axis (the optical axis of Fig. 8) and comprising:
a display panel configured to emit an image (LCD 7), the optical system configured to display a virtual image of the emitted image emitted to a viewer (virtual image 6);
an optical lens (fiber plate 3) … a partial (polarizing plate 8) and a reflective polarizer (col. 5 lines 6-9: “The cholesteric liquid crystal 4 selectively transmits and reflects circularly polarized light according to the rotation direction of the circularly polarized light.”),
a quarter wave retarder (quarter-wave plate 2) substantially centered on the optical axis (see Fig. 8), the emitted image being transmitted by the reflective polarizer after it is first reflected by the reflective polarizer (see Fig. 8).
However, there is no combination of references that does not involve improper hindsight that would meet all of the limitations of the claim. One would have needed to move the reflective polarizer 114 of Mertz to the second major surface of lens 116 such that the two partial reflectors are on either side of a single lens as taught by Togino. However, the ¼ wave plate of Mertz that is between 117 and 114 is necessary in order to obtain the desired light-path. This quarter-wave plate would need to be curved as taught by Tanijiri so that the reflective polarizer 114 could both be attached to the lens and be curved in the claimed manner. There is no proper rationale, teaching, suggestion or motivation to make these series of changes to Mertz.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to teach or reasonably suggest the following limitation when taken in context of the claim as a whole: “the reflective polarizer curved about two orthogonal axes and disposed on a major surface of the optical lens” for substantially the same reasons explained for claim 1 above.
Claims 10-14 depend from claim 9 and are allowed for at least the reason stated above.
Claims 8 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 9 respectfully and would be allowed for at least the reason stated above, if the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are overcome.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights