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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 27th, 2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo (CN 113970836 A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Guo discloses an optical system (Fig. 1), comprising sequentially from an object side to an image side:
a stop (5),
a lens group comprising sequentially from the object side to the image side: a first lens (1), a second lens (2), a third lens (3), and a fourth lens (4), and
a display unit (6),
wherein each of the first lens, the second lens, and the fourth lens has a respective positive focal power ([0045], “The first lens 1 has positive optical power, the second lens 2 has positive optical power … and the fourth lens 4 has positive optical power”), and the third lens has a negative focal power ([0045], “the third lens 3 has negative optical power”), and
wherein the display unit has a maximum imaging circle diameter ([0072], “light source 5 in this embodiment is a micro-LED green rectangular light source 5 with an aspect ratio of 16:9 and specific dimensions of 2.877*1.618mm”, the light source 5 thus has a circle diameter with a maximum diameter of 3.236 mm) less than a diameter of the stop ([0072], “The aperture of the aperture 6 is 4mm”, the diameter of the aperture is larger than the maximum circle diameter of the display).
Regarding claim 2, Guo further discloses wherein the maximum imaging circle diameter ranges from 3.1 mm to 3.3 mm ([0072], “light source 5 in this embodiment is a micro-LED green rectangular light source 5 with an aspect ratio of 16:9 and specific dimensions of 2.877*1.618mm”, the light source 5 thus has a circle diameter with a maximum diameter of 3.236 mm), and the diameter of the stop ranges from 3.8 mm to 4.2 mm ( ([0072], “The aperture of the aperture 6 is 4mm”).
Regarding claim 3, Guo further discloses wherein the first lens (1) is provided proximate to the stop (5, as shown in Fig. 1, lens 1 is proximate to stop 5), and has an object-side surface thereof spaced 0.1 mm to 0.4 mm from the stop along an optical axis (as shown in Fig. 1 and values from Table 1, the distance between 1 and 5 is approximately 0.22 mm).
Regarding claim 10, Guo further discloses wherein the display unit comprises a Micro-LED chip ([0064], “The light source 5 is a micro-LED monochrome light source”).
Regarding claim 11, Guo further discloses an augmented reality device ([0059], “The optical imaging module in this embodiment is generally used in AR devices.”), comprises a housing ([0059], “The optical imaging module in this embodiment is generally used in AR devices”, examiner interprets the AR device to be the housing) and an optical system, wherein the optical system is accommodated within the housing ([0079], “imaging light route of the AR device in this embodiment is provided by the optical imaging module in this application”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 113970836 A, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Guo discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical system has a total effective focal length ranging from 5.8 mm to 6.1 mm.
However, the effective focal length is a “result effective variable” because it confers to the size of individual lens elements of the optical system, as disclosed in [0050], “Specifically, this application defines the effective focal length of the lens assembly as 4mm < f < 11.7mm”. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Guo to have the optical system has a total effective focal length ranging from 5.8 mm to 6.1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the optical system Guo by making the optical system have a total effective focal length ranging from 5.8 mm to 6.1 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, Guo discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the optical system has an F number from 1.45 to 1.55.
However, the F number is a “result effective variable” because it confers to the size of the aperture of the optical system. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Guo to have the optical system have an F number from 1.45 to 1.55, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the optical system Guo by making the optical system has an F number from 1.45 to 1.55 as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Guo further discloses further comprises a first air gap between the first lens and the second lens (as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1, an air gap of 0.1mm is between the first and second lenses).
Guo does not specifically disclose wherein the first air gap has a width less than 0.1 mm.
However, the air gap width is a “result effective variable” because it confer to the size of the optical system. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Guo to have the first air gap has a width less than 0.1 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the optical system Guo by making the first air gap to have a width less than 0.1 mm as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Guo further discloses further comprises a second air gap between the third lens and the fourth lens (as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1, an air gap of 1.871mm is between the third and fourth lenses).
Guo does not specifically disclose wherein the second air gap has a width ranging from 1.73 mm to 1.78 mm, wherein the width of the second air gap accounts for 23% to 25% of a total optical length of the optical system.
However, the air gap width is a “result effective variable” because it confer to the size of the optical system. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Guo to have the second air gap has a width ranging from 1.73 mm to 1.78 mm, wherein the width of the second air gap accounts for 23% to 25% of a total optical length of the optical system, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the optical system Guo by making the second air gap have a width ranging from 1.73 mm to 1.78 mm, wherein the width of the second air gap accounts for 23% to 25% of a total optical length of the optical system as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, regarding claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the first lens has an effective focal length ranging from 5.3 mm to 5.8 mm; the second lens has an effective focal length ranging from 8 mm to 8.5 mm; the third lens has an effective focal length ranging from −2.5 mm to −2 mm; the fourth lens has an effective focal length ranging from 3.8 mm to 4.3 mm.
Specifically, regarding claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the first lens has convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, wherein a first height at which light transmits to the object-side surface of the first lens is higher than a second height at which light transmits to the image-side surface of the first lens; the second lens has a convex object-side surface and a concave image-side surface, wherein a third height at which light transmits to the object-side surface of the second lens is higher than a fourth height at which light transmits to the image-side surface of the second lens.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Chen (US 2019/0033604) teaches an optical system, comprising sequentially from an object side to an image side: a stop, a lens group comprising sequentially from the object side to the image side: a first lens, a second lens, a third lens, and a fourth lens, and a display unit, wherein the display unit has a maximum imaging circle diameter less than a diameter of the stop.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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 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 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 25 August 2026
Prosecution Insights