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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 12/14/2025 has been entered. Claims 9-13 and 22-37 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 15-16, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable under Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Paukshto have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable under Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge et al. (US 20080309854 A1). Therefore, this rejection is non-final.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9-13 and 22-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 9-13, 22-25, 27-31, 33-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 20180039052 A1), hereinafter Khan, in view of Ryu et al. (US 20200142254 A1), hereinafter Ryu, and further in view of Ge et al. (US 20080309854 A1), hereinafter Ge.
Regarding independent claim 9, Khan discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display system (40; Fig. 2; ¶0022) configured to produce light (¶0018), wherein the display system (40) comprises:
an array of display pixels (14, P; Fig. 2; ¶0026) configured to produce the light (¶0026);
a linear polarizer (16; Fig. 2; ¶0026) that is formed over the array of display pixels (14) (Fig. 2); and
a first quarter wave plate (18; Fig. 2; ¶0026) that is formed over the linear polarizer (16) (Fig. 2); and
a lens module (20, 34; Fig. 2; ¶0022) that receives the light from the display system (40) (Fig. 2), wherein the lens module (20) comprises:
a lens element (26; Fig. 2; ¶0027) having a convex surface (Fig. 2; ¶0027);
a partially reflective mirror (22; Fig. 2; ¶0030) that is interposed between the lens element (26) and the display system (40) (Fig. 2); and
a second quarter wave plate (28; Fig. 2; ¶0031), wherein the lens element (26) is interposed between the partially reflective mirror (22) and the second quarter wave plate (28) (Fig. 2).
Khan does not disclose the lens element having a concave surface, the first quarter wave plate is an A-plate having a negative birefringence, and the second quarter wave plate is an A-plate having a positive birefringence.
However, Ryu teaches a similar electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising a display system (102, 104, 106; Fig. 1) and a lens module (108, 104, 110, 116, 112; Fig. 1), wherein the lens module comprises a lens element (108; Fig. 1; ¶0049) having a convex surface (Figs. 1-2) and a concave surface (Figs. 1-2) (¶0049). There are only a few possibilities as to the shape of the lens element – that the lens is biconvex, biconcave, plano-convex, plano-concave, or a meniscus lens. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lens element to have a meniscus shape – having a convex surface and a concave surface – since there are only a few possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp for the purpose of providing an image that is in focus at the user’s eye.
Ryu does not teach the first quarter wave plate is an A-plate having a negative birefringence and the second quarter wave plate is an A-plate having a positive birefringence.
However, Ge teaches a similar electronic device comprising a display (¶0001), a linear polarizer (100a; Fig. 3; ¶0070), a first wave plate (120a; Fig. 3; ¶0070), and a second wave plate (120b; Fig. 3; ¶0071), wherein the first wave plate is an A-plate having a negative birefringence (Fig. 3B; ¶0070) and the second wave plate is an A-plate having a positive birefringence (Fig. 3B; ¶0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu for the first quarter wave plate to be an A-plate with a negative birefringence and the second quarter wave plate to be an A-plate with a positive birefringence as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 10, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 9, as set forth above. Khan further discloses wherein the first quarter wave plate (18) has a first optical axis and wherein the second quarter wave plate (28) has a second optical axis (inherent that each quarter wave plate has an optical axis). Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the second optical axis is parallel to the first optical axis.
However, Ge teaches the first quarter wave plate (120a) has a first optical axis (121a; Fig. 3B; ¶0072) and wherein the second quarter wave plate (120b) has a second optical axis (121b; Fig. 3B; ¶0072) that is parallel to the first optical axis (121a) (Figs. 3B, 4A-4C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first optical axis and the second optical axis to be parallel for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 11, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 9, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the lens module further comprises: a reflective polarizer (30; Fig. 2; ¶0032), wherein the second quarter wave plate (28) is formed between the reflective polarizer (30) and the lens element (26) (Fig. 2) and wherein the reflective polarizer (30) has a pass axis and a reflection axis that is orthogonal to the pass axis (this limitation is axiomatic, this is how a reflective polarizer’s axes are oriented in order for it to work).
Regarding claim 12, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 11, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the lens module (20, 34) further comprises: an additional linear polarizer (34; Fig. 2; ¶0036), wherein the reflective polarizer (30) is interposed between the second quarter wave plate (28) and the additional linear polarizer (34) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 9, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the lens module further comprises an additional lens element (32; Fig. 2; ¶0027). Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose an additional wave plate adjacent to the second quarter wave plate, wherein the additional wave plate is interposed between the second quarter wave plate and the additional lens element and wherein the additional wave plate comprises an A-plate having a negative birefringence.
However, Ge teaches an additional wave plate (110b; Fig. 3B; ¶0071) adjacent to the second quarter wave plate (120b) (Fig. 3B; ¶0071), wherein the additional wave plate (110b) comprises an A-plate having a negative birefringence (-A film; Fig. 3B; ¶0071). Ge also teaches the additional wave plate is interposed between the second quarter wave plate (120b) and an additional element (101b; Fig. 3B), thus if the additional wave plate (110b of Ge) were incorporated into the device of Khan in view of Ryu, the additional wave plate (110b) of Ge) would be interposed between the second quarter wave plate (18 of Khan) and the additional lens element (32 of Khan) (Fig. 2 of Khan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu to include an additional wave plate between the second quarter wave plate and the additional lens element as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding independent claim 22, Khan discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display system (40; Fig. 2; ¶0022) configured to produce light (¶0018), wherein the display system (40) comprises:
an array of display pixels (14, P; Fig. 2; ¶0026) configured to produce the light (¶0026);
a linear polarizer (16; Fig. 2; ¶0026) that is formed over the array of display pixels (14) (Fig. 2); and
a first quarter wave plate (18; Fig. 2; ¶0026) that is formed over the linear polarizer (16) (Fig. 2); and
a lens module (20, 34; Fig. 2; ¶0022) that receives the light from the display system (40) (Fig. 2), wherein the lens module (20) comprises:
a lens element (26; Fig. 2; ¶0027) having a convex surface (Fig. 2; ¶0027);
a partially reflective mirror (22; Fig. 2; ¶0030) that is interposed between the lens element (26) and the display system (40) (Fig. 2); and
a second quarter wave plate (28; Fig. 2; ¶0031), wherein the lens element (26) is interposed between the partially reflective mirror (22) and the second quarter wave plate (28) (Fig. 2).
Khan does not disclose the lens element having a concave surface, the first quarter wave plate has a negative birefringence, and the second quarter wave plate has a positive birefringence.
However, Ryu teaches a similar electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising a display system (102, 104, 106; Fig. 1) and a lens module (108, 104, 110, 116, 112; Fig. 1), wherein the lens module comprises a lens element (108; Fig. 1; ¶0049) having a convex surface (Figs. 1-2) and a concave surface (Figs. 1-2) (¶0049). There are only a few possibilities as to the shape of the lens element – that the lens is biconvex, biconcave, plano-convex, plano-concave, or a meniscus lens. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lens element to have a meniscus shape – having a convex surface and a concave surface – since there are only a few possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp for the purpose of providing an image that is in focus at the user’s eye.
Ryu does not teach the first quarter wave plate has a negative birefringence and the second quarter wave plate has a positive birefringence.
However, Ge teaches a similar electronic device comprising a display (¶0001), a linear polarizer (100a; Fig. 3; ¶0070), a first quarter wave plate (120a; Fig. 3; ¶0070), and a second quarter wave plate (120b; Fig. 3; ¶0071), wherein the first quarter wave plate has a negative birefringence (Fig. 3B; ¶0070) and the second quarter wave plate has a positive birefringence (Fig. 3B; ¶0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu for the first quarter wave plate to have a negative birefringence and the second quarter wave plate to have a positive birefringence as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 23, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 22, as set forth above. Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the display system further comprises a first half wave plate with a positive birefringence, wherein the first half wave plate is interposed between the linear polarizer and the first quarter wave plate.
However, Ge teaches a first half wave plate (110a; Fig. 3B; ¶0070) with a positive birefringence (Fig. 3B; ¶0070), wherein the first half wave plate (110a) is interposed between the linear polarizer (100a) and the first quarter wave plate (120a) (Fig. 3B; ¶0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu to include a first half wave plate with positive birefringence between the linear polarizer and the first quarter wave plate as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 24, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 23, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the second quarter wave plate (28) is interposed between the lens element (26) and another element (30; Fig. 2). Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the lens module further comprises a second half wave plate with a negative birefringence, wherein the second quarter wave plate is interposed between the lens element and the second half wave plate.
However, Ge teaches a second half wave plate (110b; Fig. 3B; ¶0071) with a negative birefringence (Fig. 3B; ¶0071), wherein the second quarter wave plate (120b) is interposed between an additional element (155a/150/155b/152; Fig. 3A) and the second half wave plate (110b) (Fig. 3; ¶0071). Therefore, it is suggested that including the second half wave plate (110b of Ge) in the invention of Khan in view of Ryu would place the second quarter wave plate (28 of Khan) between the lens element (26 of Khan) and the second half wave plate (110b of Ge) (Fig. 2 of Khan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu to include a second half wave plate between the lens element and the second quarter wave plate as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 25, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 24, as set forth above. Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the first and second quarter wave plates are A-plates and wherein the first and second half wave plates are A-plates.
However, Ge teaches the first (120a) and second quarter wave plates (120b) are A-plates (Fig. 3B; ¶0070-¶0071) and wherein the first (110a) and second half wave plates (110b) are A-plates (Fig. 3B; ¶0070-¶0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first and second quarter wave plates to be A-plates and for the first and second half wave plates to be A-plates as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 27, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 22, as set forth above. Khan further discloses wherein the first quarter wave plate (18) has a first optical axis and wherein the second quarter wave plate (28) has a second optical axis (inherent that each quarter wave plate has an optical axis). Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the second optical axis is parallel to the first optical axis.
However, Ge teaches the first quarter wave plate (120a) has a first optical axis (121a; Fig. 3B; ¶0072) and wherein the second quarter wave plate (120b) has a second optical axis (121b; Fig. 3B; ¶0072) that is parallel to the first optical axis (121a) (Figs. 3B, 4A-4C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first optical axis and the second optical axis to be parallel for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 28, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 27, including the first and second optical axes being parallel, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the linear polarizer (16) has an absorption axis and the first and second optical axes are at a 45 degree angle relative to the absorption axis (the absorption axis of a linear polarizer is perpendicular to the pass axis, which is at a 45 degree angle relative to the first optical axis as disclosed in ¶0026, therefore the absorption axis is also at a 45 degree angle relative to the first optical axis; further the first and second optical axes as taught as being parallel by Ge, therefore, the absorption axis would also be at a 45 degree angle relative to the second optical axis).
Regarding claim 29, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 27, including the first and second optical axes being parallel, as set forth above. Khan further discloses wherein the linear polarizer (16) has a pass axis and the first optical axis is at a 45 degree angle relative to the pass axis (¶0026). Further, since Ge teaches the first and second optical axes are parallel, the second optical axis is also at a 45 degree angle relative to the pass axis.
Regarding claim 30, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 27, including the first and second optical axes being parallel, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the lens module further comprises a reflective polarizer (30; Fig. 2; ¶0032), wherein the second quarter wave plate (28) is formed between the reflective polarizer (30) and the lens element (26) (Fig. 2), wherein the reflective polarizer (30) has a reflection axis (axiomatic, this is an necessary part of a reflective polarizer), and wherein the second optical axis is at a 45 degree angle relative to the reflection axis (¶0032 states the reflection axis is perpendicular to the pass axis, which is at a 45 degree angle relative to the second optical axis as disclosed in ¶0032 and ¶0049, therefore the reflection axis is also at a 45 degree angle relative to the second optical axis). Further, since Ge teaches the first and second optical axes are parallel, the first optical axis is also at a 45 degree angle relative to the reflection axis.
Regarding independent claim 31, Khan discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display system (40; Fig. 2; ¶0022) configured to produce light (¶0018), wherein the display system (40) comprises:
an array of display pixels (14, P; Fig. 2; ¶0026) configured to produce the light (¶0026);
a linear polarizer (16; Fig. 2; ¶0026) that is formed over the array of display pixels (14) (Fig. 2); and
a first quarter wave plate (18; Fig. 2; ¶0026) that is formed over the linear polarizer (16) (Fig. 2); and
a lens module (20, 34; Fig. 2; ¶0022) that receives the light from the display system (40) (Fig. 2), wherein the lens module (20) comprises:
a lens element (26; Fig. 2; ¶0027) having a convex surface (Fig. 2; ¶0027);
a partially reflective mirror (22; Fig. 2; ¶0030) that is interposed between the lens element (26) and the display system (40) (Fig. 2); and
a second quarter wave plate (28; Fig. 2; ¶0031), wherein the lens element (26) is interposed between the partially reflective mirror (22) and the second quarter wave plate (28) (Fig. 2).
Khan does not disclose the lens element having a concave surface, the first quarter wave plate is an A-plate, and the second quarter wave plate is an A-plate.
However, Ryu teaches a similar electronic device (Fig. 1) comprising a display system (102, 104, 106; Fig. 1) and a lens module (108, 104, 110, 116, 112; Fig. 1), wherein the lens module comprises a lens element (108; Fig. 1; ¶0049) having a convex surface (Figs. 1-2) and a concave surface (Figs. 1-2) (¶0049). There are only a few possibilities as to the shape of the lens element – that the lens is biconvex, biconcave, plano-convex, plano-concave, or a meniscus lens. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the lens element to have a meniscus shape – having a convex surface and a concave surface – since there are only a few possible solutions and since it has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within their technical grasp for the purpose of providing an image that is in focus at the user’s eye.
Ryu does not teach the first quarter wave plate is an A-plate and the second quarter wave plate is an A-plate.
However, Ge teaches a similar electronic device comprising a display (¶0001), a linear polarizer (100a; Fig. 3; ¶0070), a first quarter wave plate (120a; Fig. 3; ¶0070), and a second quarter wave plate (120b; Fig. 3; ¶0071), wherein the first quarter wave plate is an A-plate (Fig. 3B; ¶0070) and the second quarter wave plate is an A-plate (Fig. 3B; ¶0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu for the quarter wave plates to be A-plates as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 33, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 31, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the second quarter wave plate (28) is interposed between the partially reflective mirror (22) and another element (30; Fig. 2). Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose a half wave plate, wherein the second quarter wave plate is interposed between the partially reflective mirror and the half wave plate, wherein the second quarter wave plate comprises a positive A-plate, and wherein the half wave plate comprises a negative A-plate.
However, Ge teaches a half wave plate (110b; Fig. 3B; ¶0071), wherein the second quarter wave plate (120b) is interposed between an additional element (155a/150/155b/152; Fig. 3A) and the half wave plate (110b) (Fig. 3), wherein the second quarter wave plate (120b) comprises a positive A-plate (Fig. 3B; ¶0072), and wherein the half wave plate (110b) comprises a negative A-plate (Fig. 3B; ¶0072). Thus by including the half wave plate (110b) in the invention of Khan in view of Ryu would result in the second quarter wave plate (28 of Khan) being interposed between the partially reflective mirror (22 of Khan) and the half wave plate (110b of Ge) (Fig. 2 of Khan of Fig. 3 of Ge).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu to include a half wave plate wherein the second quarter wave plate is interposed between the partially reflective mirror and the half wave plate, and wherein the second quarter wave plate comprises a positive A-plate and the half wave plate comprises a negative A-plate as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 34, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 31, as set forth above. Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the first quarter wave plate has a first birefringence of a first sign, the second quarter wave plate has a second birefringence of a second sign, and the first and second signs are opposites.
However, Ge teaches the first quarter wave plate (120a) has a first birefringence of a first sign (-A film; Fig, 3B; ¶0070), the second quarter wave plate (120b) has a second birefringence of a second sign (+A film; Fig. 3B; ¶0071), and the first and second signs are opposites (Fig. 3B; ¶0070-¶0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu for the first quarter wave plate to be an A-plate with a negative birefringence and the second quarter wave plate to be an A-plate with a positive birefringence as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 35, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 34, as set forth above. Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the first sign is negative, wherein the first quarter wave plate has an extraordinary index of refraction and an ordinary index of refraction, and wherein the extraordinary index of refraction is less than the ordinary index of refraction.
However, Ge teaches the first sign is negative (-A film; Fig. 3B; ¶0070), wherein the first quarter wave plate (120a) has an extraordinary index of refraction and an ordinary index of refraction, and wherein the extraordinary index of refraction is less than the ordinary index of refraction (inherent, this is the definition of negative birefringence).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu for the first quarter wave plate to be an A-plate with a negative birefringence and the second quarter wave plate to be an A-plate with a positive birefringence as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 36, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 31, as set forth above. Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose a half wave plate that is formed over the linear polarizer, wherein the half wave plate is interposed between the linear polarizer and the first quarter wave plate, wherein the half wave plate comprises a positive A-plate, wherein the first quarter wave plate comprises a negative A-plate and wherein the second quarter wave plate comprises a positive A-plate.
However, Ge teaches a half wave plate (110a; Fig. 3; ¶0070) that is formed over the linear polarizer (100a) (Fig. 3; ¶0070), wherein the half wave plate (110a) is interposed between the linear polarizer (100a) and the first quarter wave plate (110a) (Fig. 3; ¶0070), wherein the half wave plate (110a) comprises a positive A-plate (+A film; Fig. 3B; ¶0070), wherein the first quarter wave plate (120a) comprises a negative A-plate (-A film; Fig. 3B; ¶0070) and wherein the second quarter wave plate (120b) comprises a positive A-plate (+A film; Fig. 3B; ¶0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu for the first quarter wave plate to be a negative A-plate, the second quarter wave plate to be a positive A-plate, and to include a half wave plate that is a positive wave plate between the linear polarizer and the first quarter wave plate as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Regarding claim 37, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claim 36, as set forth above. Khan further discloses the first quarter wave plate (18) has a second optical axis (inherent that each quarter wave plate has an optical axis). Neither Khan nor Ryu disclose the half wave plate has a first optical axis and the first and second optical axes are nonparallel.
However, Ge teaches the half wave plate (110a) has a first optical axis (111a; Fig. 3B; ¶0072), wherein the first quarter wave plate (120a) has a second optical axis (121a; Fig. 3B; ¶0072), and wherein the first (111a) and second optical axes (121a) are nonparallel (Fig. 3B; ¶0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the first optical axis and the second optical axis to be nonparallel as taught by Ge for the purpose of having a display with wide viewing angles and broadband performance with low light leakage (¶0009-¶0010, ¶0087 of Ge).
Claim(s) 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan (US 20180039052 A1), in view of Ryu (US 20200142254 A1), further in view of Ge (US 20080309854 A1), and further in view of Wang et al. (US 20150168607 A1), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claims 26 and 32, Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge discloses the electronic device defined in claims 22 and 31, as set forth above. Neither Khan, Ryu, nor Ge disclose the first and second quarter wave plates are normal dispersion quarter wave plates.
However, Wang teaches an electronic device (¶0006) comprising a display (¶0006) and a quarter wave plate (¶0006), wherein the quarter wave plate is a normal dispersion quarter wave plate (¶0006).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Khan in view of Ryu and further in view of Ge for the first and second quarter wave plates to be normal dispersion quarter wave plates as taught by Wang for the purpose of reducing leakage and improving viewing quality (¶0006, ¶0008 of Wang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Do et al. (US 20090316095 A1) and Yoon et al. (KR 20150137367 A) disclose similar electronic devices comprising a display system with quarter wave plates and stacked A-plates, wherein stacked wave plates have opposite birefringences.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 24th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872