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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2024 and 10/25/2025 were considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,360,308. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Instant Application 18/953,056
US 11,360,308
1. An optical system, comprising:
an optical device including:
a first partial reflector; and
a second partial reflector positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light, wherein:
at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light, and
at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector, and at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element; and
a display device.
1. An optical device for a head-mounted display device, the optical device comprising:
a first partial reflector;
a second partial reflector positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light, wherein:
at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light,
and at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector, and at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element, and
a head-mounted display device
a third partial reflector.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,422,373. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Instant Application 18/953,056
US 11,422,373
1. An optical system, comprising:
an optical device including:
a first partial reflector; and
a second partial reflector positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light, wherein: at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light, and at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector, and
at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element; and
a display device.
1. An optical system, comprising: an optical device including:
a first partial reflector; and a second partial reflector positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light, wherein: at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light, and at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector, and
at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element,
the first partial reflector receives light emitted from a display panel of the display device, the emitted light having a limited emission cone, and the emission cone varies spatially over the display panel; and
a display device.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,046. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following.
Instant Application 18/953,056
US 12,147,046
1. An optical system, comprising:
an optical device including:
a first partial reflector; and
a second partial reflector positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light, wherein:
at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light, and
at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector, and at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element; and
a display device.
1. An optical system, comprising: an optical device including:
a first partial reflector; and
a second partial reflector positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light, wherein:
at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light, and
at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector; and at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element; and
a display device,
wherein the first partial reflector receives light emitted from a display panel of the display device and at least one of the following is satisfied: the display panel is configured to provide, at a first location on the display panel, light having a first emission cone characterized by a first emission cone angle and provide, at a second location on the display panel that is distinct from the first location, light having a second emission cone characterized by a second emission cone angle that is distinct from the first emission cone angle; or central rays of emission cones from the display panel intersect a common point in front of or behind the display panel.
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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman (US 8,570,656) in view of Qin et al. (US 2019/0018255).
Regarding Claim 1, Weissman discloses an optical system, comprising:
an optical device (Fig. 6, embodiment 600, Col. 9-Col. 10) including:
a first partial reflector (Fig. 6, 616, Col. 10, lines 13-48, see annotated Fig. 6, below); and
a second partial reflector (Fig. 6, 608, Col. 10, lines 13-48, see annotated Fig. 6, below) positioned relative to the first partial reflector so that the second partial reflector receives first light transmitted through the first partial reflector and reflects at least a portion of the first light toward the first partial reflector as second light (see annotated Fig. 6, below), wherein:
at least a portion of the second light is reflected by the first partial reflector as third light (see annotated Fig. 6, below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
724
430
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and at least one of the first partial reflector or the second partial reflector comprises a reflective holographic element (Fig. 6, reflective holographic element 608, Col. 9, lines 58-59); and
a display device (Fig. 6, image plane 24, Col. 10, lines 44-48).
Weissman does not specifically disclose at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector.
However, Qin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector (Fig. 1, light 141 (third light) passes through the second partial reflector, 128, after being reflected by the first partial reflector 118, the second light being 139), for the purpose of folding a light path to make an optical device physically more compact along the optical axis.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the optical system of Weissman with at least a portion of the third light is transmitted through the second partial reflector, of Qin, for the purpose of folding a light path to make an optical device physically more compact along the optical axis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gollier et al. (US 2019/0353906), Carollo et al. (US 10,095,036), Carollo et al. (US 2017/0227777), Edwards (US 2017/0242258), and Yum et al. (US 2019/0384045) are cited to show similar optical systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights