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 05/30/2025 has been 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.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/996, 123 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “the polarizing element has an effective diameter B1; a distance from the polarizing element to the display screen is L1, which satisfies: 0<(B1/2-D1/2)/L1<0.8” from the independent claim as claimed in claim 1 of the instant application and the addition of the limitation “a distance from the beam splitting element (5) to the display screen (1) is A3” renders claims 1-13 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/996, 123 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/995, 785 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the removal of the limitations “a distance from the human eye to the polarizing element is A1; and wherein an eyebox (EB) of the human eye satisfies: 0.5 <=(EB/A1)<=1” from the independent claim as claimed in claim 1 of the instant application and the addition of the limitations “a display screen having with a size of D1; the polarizing element has an effective diameter B1; a distance from the polarizing element to the display screen is L1; which satisfies: -0.2<(B1/2-D1/2)/L1<0.8” and the addition of the limitations renders claims 1-13 of the instant application as broadened and obvious variants of claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/995, 785 (reference application).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et at. (US 2018/0164590) in view of Yang et al. (CN 212111989 with US 12,704,714 being used as a translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses, an optical module (Figs. 1-13), comprising:
a display screen (30) with a size of D1 (Para. 0050), comprising a light-emitting side (see Fig. 2),
a lens group (10, 20) located on the light-emitting side of the display screen, wherein the lens group comprises at least one a first lens (10),
a polarizing element (Para. 0042), and
a phase retarder (Para. 0042),
wherein the polarizing element has an effective diameter of B1 (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”);
the polarizing element, the beam splitting element, and the phase retarder are provided on either one or more of a first side of the first lens facing away from the display screen (see Fig. 2) and a second side of the first at least one-lens facing towards the display screen (see Fig. 2);
a distance from the polarizing element to the display screen is L1 (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”;
wherein a ratio of (B1/2-D1/2)/L1 satisfies: -0.2 < (B1/2- D1/2)/L1 < 0.8 (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”).
Li does not explicitly disclose a beam splitting element.
Yang teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical module that it would have been desirable to include a beam splitting element (Col. 4, lines 26-27 and 40-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a beam splitting element as taught by the optical module of Yang in the optical module of Li since Yang teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical module for the purpose of providing an optical module with enhanced performance from an increased optical path length to further reduce cost, size, and enhance comfort for a user.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Yang further discloses, the ratio of (B1/2-D1/2)/L1 satisfies: -0.05< (B1/2- D1/2)/L1 <0.8 (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”).
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Yang further discloses, the lens group (10, 20) further comprises a second lens (20) adjacent to the display screen (see Fig. 2), the second lens has a surface facing towards the display screen (see Fig. 2).
Furthermore, Yang teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical module that it would have been desirable to make the beam splitting element is located on one side of the surface of the second lens (Col. 4, lines 26-27 and 40-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the above mentioned limitations as taught by the optical module of Yang in the optical module of Li since Yang teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical module for the purpose of providing an optical module with enhanced performance from an increased optical path length to further reduce cost, size, and enhance comfort for a user.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, the polarizing element (Para. 0042) is provided on the first side of the at least one lens group (10, 20) facing away from the display screen (see Fig. 2); or the lens group (10, 20) comprises at least two lenses (10, 20), which comprise a second lens (20) closest proximate to an eye side (see Fig. 2), wherein the second lens has a surface facing away from a human eye (see Fig. 2), and the polarizing element is located on one side of the surface facing away from the human eye (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, a first phase retarder (Para. 0042), which is provided on the first side of the at least one lens facing away from the display screen (Para. 0042), and is provided closer to the display screen than to the polarizing element (Para. 0042); or the lens group (10, 20) comprises at least two lenses, which comprise a second lens closest to an eye side, wherein the second lens has a surface facing away from a human eye, and the first phase retarder is located on one side of the surface and is provided farther away from the second lens than from the polarizing element.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, the phase retarder comprises a second phase retarder (Para. 0042), the lens group further comprises a second lens (20) adjacent to the display screen, the second lens has a surface facing towards the display screen (see Fig. 2), and the second phase retarder is located on one side of the surface and is provided closer to the display screen than to the beam splitting element (Para. 0042 and see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, the lens group further comprises a second lens (20) adjacent to the display screen (see Fig. 2), and the second lens has a positive optical power (Para. 0008 and 0043).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, wherein L1 satisfies: 10mm < L1 < 35mm (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, wherein b satisfies: 30mm<B1<55mm (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”).
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, the optical module has field of view (FOV) from 80[Symbol font/0xB0] to 120[Symbol font/0xB0] (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”).
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, the optical module has an effective focal length of F, which satisfies: 14mm <F< 38.5mm (Para. 0066, 0068 and see “Table 1” and “Table 2”).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Yang discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Li further discloses, a head mounted display, characterized by comprising: a housing (Para. 0101-0102; note, discloses a helmet); and an optical module according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et at. (US 2018/0164590) in view of Yang et al. (CN 212111989 with US 12,704,714 being used as a translation) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (US 11,448,303).
Li in view of Yang remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Li in view of Yang does not disclose the optical module has a field-of-view magnification b, which satisfies: 7.5 < b < 19.
Lu teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in an optical module that it would have been desirable to make the optical module has a field-of-view magnification b, which satisfies: 7.5 < b < 19 (Col. 8, lines 22-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the optical module has a field-of-view magnification b, which satisfies: 7.5 < b < 19 as taught by the optical module of Lu in the combination of Li in view of Yang since Lu teaches it is known to include this feature in an optical module for the purpose of providing an optical module with an enlarged field of view and enhanced resolution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Carollo et al. (US 2017/0227777), Wheelwright et al. (US 10,955,675) and Song et al. (US 12,717,132) discloses an optical module that includes a display screen, a lens group, a beam splitting element and a phase retarder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09/07/2025
Prosecution Insights