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 statement (IDS) submitted on 12/24/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the allowance on 10/29/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Restriction Election
After consideration of the reference cited on the IDS of 12/24/2025 the allowance of claims 1-10 and 21-29 on 10/7/25 has been withdrawn and prosecution on the merits has been reopened.
Since during the initial examination process a restriction requirement was made where claims 1-10 were elected and claims 21-29 were withdrawn from consideration. With the reopening of prosecution of the claims, the restriction election will be maintained. Claims 1-10 will be examined and claims 21-29 will return to the status of being withdrawn from consideration.
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 1-4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2019/082039 A1 to Yun et al., of record, (hereinafter Yun) of record and listed on 1449 filed 6/9/2025.
With respect to claim 1, Yun discloses an optical system (figure 1) comprising:
a lens element (lens 310, paragraph [0028]) that receives light from a display subsystem (100);
a first polarizer (polarizer layer 220, paragraph [0030]) that receives light from the lens element (lens 310);
a quarter wave plate (retarder layer 420, paragraph [0049]) positioned between the lens element (310) and the first polarizer (220); and
a second polarizer (retarder layers 520+620, paragraph [0065] suggests (620) is disposed on (520)) positioned between the display subsystem (100) and the lens element (310), the second polarizer having a retardance that varies across an optical window of the second polarizer (paragraph [0060], figure 2 discloses a retardance difference of 0.2 λ of 620C with respect to 636).
With respect to claim 2, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 1 wherein the first polarizer comprises a wire-grid polarizer (paragraph [0037], line 4, discloses a wire-grid polarizer as the reflective polarizer (220)).
With respect to claim 3, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 1 wherein the first polarizer (220) comprises a wire grid polarizer (paragraph [0037], line 4) and the second polarizer comprises (520+620) a spatially varying polarizer (figure 2 and paragraphs [0060]+[0065]).
With respect to claim 4, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 1 wherein the second polarizer comprises a spatially varying polarizer (retarder layer 620) (figure 2 and paragraphs [0060]+[0065]).
With respect to claim 6, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 4 wherein the spatially varying polarizer (retarder layer 620) provides quarter-wave retardation at a center of the optical window, and gradually decreases the retardation toward the periphery of the optical window (figure 2 and paragraph [0054] discloses regions 636 and 638 “may not require compensation”, i.e., the retardation is only that of quarter waveplate (520) and paragraph [0060] discloses a second retardation (-0.2λ) at the periphery of the optical window).
With respect to claim 8, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 4 wherein the spatially varying polarizer (retarder layer 620, figure 2 and paragraphs [0060]+[0065]) provides a first retardation at a center of the optical window and provides a second retardation at the periphery of the optical window, wherein the second retardation is less than the first retardation (paragraph [0054] discloses regions 636 and 638 “may not require compensation”, i.e., the retardation is only that of quarter waveplate (520)and paragraph [0060] discloses a second retardation (-0.2λ) at the periphery of the optical window, wherein the second retardation (-0.2λ) is less than the first retardation (i.e., zero).)
With respect to claim 9, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 4 wherein the retardation of the spatially varying polarizer (retarder layer 620, figure 2 and paragraphs [0060]+[0065]) varies linearly or non-linearly across the optical window (“first and third discrete retarder sections 620A and 620C may have a retardance difference of +0.2 λ and second and fourth discrete retarder sections 620B and 620D may have a retardance difference of -0.2 λ from the retardance of first and second longitudinal sections 636 and 638, or vice versa”, this indicates a nonlinear variation in retardation across the optical window).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/082039 A1 to Yun et al (hereinafter Yun) in view of Komanduri et al., “Multi-twist retarders for broadband polarization transformation”, Proc. of SPIE, Vol 8279, pages 82790E-1 to 82790E-10 (hereinafter Komanduri), of record and listed on 1449 filed 11/30/2022.
With respect to claim 5, Yun discloses the optical system of claim 4 wherein the spatially varying polarizer comprises a layered retarder (para [0065] suggests depositing a retarder upon a retarder, Yun)).
However, Yun fails to teach a multi-twist retarder.
Yun and Komanduri are related as retarders.
Komanduri teaches (fig 2a) a multi-twist retarder (Two-twist LC structure, fig. 2a note).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the spatially varying polarizer of Yun to incorporate the multi-twist retarder of Komanduri for the purpose of excellent performance and very lost cost (Abstract).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2019/082039A1 to Yun et al., of record, (hereinafter Yun).
With respect to claim 7, the optical system of claim 6, wherein the spatially varying polarizer (retarder layer 620, figure 2 and paragraphs [0060]+[0065]) provides retardation (0.2λ retardation, para 60) at the periphery of the optical window (“first and third discrete retarder sections 620A and 620C may have a retardance difference of +0.2 λ and second and fourth discrete retarder sections 620B and 620D may have a retardance difference of -0.2 λ”, that is 1/5 or -1/5 retardation, para 60).
However, Yun fails to teach an octadic-wave (1/8) retardation.
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). Yun teaches that the retardation in the periphery of the optical window is in a range of values. An increase in the retardation of the periphery will help in contrast while making the imaging grainy and a decrease in the retardation would make the imaging finer while reducing the contrast. Therefore, the retardation in the periphery of the optical window is a result effective variable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed octadic retardation, and one would have chosen the octadic retardation according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with contrast. One would have been motivated to have the retardation to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with contrast ratio.
With respect to claim 10, The optical system of claim 4, further comprising: control circuitry operatively coupled to the spatially varying polarizer.
Yun fails to teach a control circuitry operative to selectively adjust the retardation provided by the spatially varying polarizer.
However, Yun does disclose (retarder layer 620, figure 2 and paragraphs [0060]+[0065]) where the retardance difference Θ may be a positive retardance difference Θ+ or a negative retardance difference Θ-. Whether a discrete retarder section includes a positive retardance difference or a negative retardance difference may depend on a desired polarization state of light through optical system 1000”, para 60, this indicates a control circuitry capable of adjusting the retardations of the sections of spatially varying polarizer with the discrete elements 620A-620D)). It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control circuitry of Yun to include selectively adjusting the retardation in order to better control the optical properties provided by the spatially varying polarizer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHONE B ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2434. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights