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 .
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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1-13 stand preliminarily amended as of 1/17/2025.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The parent claim requires a phase retarder, and the instant claim requires the phase retarder comprise a second phase retarder. Comparatively, dependent claim 7 (also dependent from claim 1) requires the phase retarder comprise a first phase retarder. The number of phase retarders encompassed by the scope of the claims is not clear or definite to one of ordinary skill in the art. Clarification is required. For purposes of examination, the “second” is considered to nominal and to direct the invention to a separate embodiment from that of claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-7, 9-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun (CN 214751119 U, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Sun discloses an optical module (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a display screen (10) with a size of D1 (¶67, several aperture entries each ~37mm) and having a light emitting side thereof,
a lens group (20) located on a light-emitting side of the display screen, wherein the lens group comprises at least one lens (210),
a polarizing element (30),
a beam splitting element (40), and
a phase retarder (50),
wherein the polarizing element (30) and the beam splitting element (40) are provided with the at least one lens (210) of the lens group therebetween, the phase retarder (50) is located on the light-emitting side of the display screen (Figs. 1 and 3 together showing 50 receives light from the display), and
a distance from the beam splitting element (40) to the display screen (10) is A3 (¶65, 13.70311+0.45), which satisfies:
1<(D1/2) /A3<9 (from tables of ¶63 and ¶65, 1.263).
Regarding claim 3, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further disclose wherein the beam splitting element has an effective diameter B2 ranging from 33mm to 51mm (¶65, 37.31796; Figs. 1 and 3 show that the beam splitter matches the effective aperture, i.e. the aperture of the narrower optical components).
Regarding claim 4, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the optical module has a total optical length ranging from 10mm to 25mm (¶60, TTL = 24.6mm).
Regarding claim 5, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the lens group comprises a first lens (220) proximate to an eye (70) side (Figs. 1 and 3), the first lens comprises a surface (221) facing away from the eye side, and the polarizing element (60) is provided on a side of the surface (221).
Regarding claim 6, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the lens group comprises a lens (210) adjacent to the display screen (as in Fig. 1), the lens comprises a surface (211) facing towards the display screen (10), and the beam splitting element (30) is provided on a side of the surface (Fig. 3); or the lens group comprises at least two lenses, with the beam splitting element provided therebetween.
Regarding claim 7, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the phase retarder comprises a first phase retarder (40); the lens group comprises a first lens (220) proximate to an eye (70) side (Fig. 1), the first lens comprises a surface (221) facing away from the eye side (Figs. 1 and 2), and the first phase retarder is provided on a side of the surface and is farther away from the first lens than the polarizing element (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the polarizing element (60) and the beam splitting element (30) are provided with the at least one lens of the lens group therebetween (210), and the lens group comprises a lens either adjacent to the display screen (10) or located between two adjacent lenses (Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 10, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, wherein the polarizing element (60) has an effective diameter B1 (¶67, Table 2, 40.03689,); a distance from the polarizing element to the display screen is L1 (¶65, Table 1, 28.553), which; satisfies: 0<(B1/2-D1/2)/L1<0.8 (~0.00352).
Regarding claim 11, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 10, and further discloses wherein B1 ranges from 40mm to 50mm (¶67, Table 2), L1 ranges from 10mm to 22mm (¶67, Table 2, ~13.70311 – 20.7mm).
Regarding claim 13, Sun discloses a head mounted display (Abstract), comprising: a housing (sequitur, e.g. for mounting on the head and for mounting the optics); and an optical module according to claim 1 (as above).
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 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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 1 above
Regarding claim 2, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses 100-105 degree angular range (¶60) and satisfies wherein the polarizing element (60) has an effective diameter B1 (¶67, Table 2, 40.03689,); a distance from the polarizing element to the display screen is L1 (¶65, Table 1, 28.553), which; satisfies: 0<(B1/2-D1/2)/L1<0.8 (~0.00352) (cf. Applicant’s specification, ¶115, where satisfying this range is advantageous to the claimed marginal field of view), but does not explicitly show wherein the optical module as an incident angle of a marginal field of view ranges from -38 degrees to 30 degrees.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Sun has disclosed the general conditions of the claim as above, and satisfies numerical requirements disclosed by the instant application as effective for the claimed range toward enhancing brightness given a marginal field of view, thus increasing the probability of a successful optimization of Sun. Benefit of optimizing the field of view includes a comfortably wide viewing area with optimal brightness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the incident angle of a marginal field of view of Sun for the purpose of achieving a comfortably wide viewing angle with optimal brightness and thus achieved the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the beam splitting element (30) is provided on the at least one a lens of the lens group (Fig. 3), but does not explicitly show the lens as a central thickness ranging from 4mm to 6.5mm (¶65, Table, 2, ~7), with the beam splitting element thereon.
However, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the thickness of the lens (210) is close to the claimed range. "[W]here 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).
Since dimensions of optical elements are exceptionally well known to be results effective for optical focus and aberration such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to routinely experiment with minor variation of the dimensions of Sun and thus obtained the claimed range for the purpose of improving image quality and/or minimizing optical aberration.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tohara (US 20200192079 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 8, Sun discloses the optical module according to claim 1, and as best understood, does not explicitly show wherein the phase retarder comprises a second phase retarder; the lens group comprises a lens adjacent to the display screen; the second phase retarder is provided between the lens and the display screen.
Tohara explicitly shows wherein the phase retarder comprises a second phase retarder (112); the lens group comprises a lens (106) adjacent to the display screen (110); the second phase retarder is provided between the lens and the display screen (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have followed the instructions of Tohara to rearrange the optical components of Sun and thus improved polarization characteristics, improved brightness, uniformity, and color (Tohara, ¶3).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12487467 B2 discloses a pancake lens
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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 5712701284. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights