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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3 and 5-22 are currently pending. Claims 17-20 and 22 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. In response to the Office Action Mailed 12/30/2025. Applicant amended claims 1, 5, 17 and 20-22.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240353708 A1 to Yang et al. in view of US 20190310488 A1 to Taguchi further in view of US 20140254011 A1 to McCarthy et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Yang discloses an apparatus comprising: a display (FIG. 1. electronic device 10); and an optical configuration configured to form an image of the display (Fig. 2 optical system 20), wherein: the optical configuration comprises a lens assembly (See Fig. 2); the lens assembly comprises a lens having a curved surface (See Fig. 2 lens element 26 with convex surface) and a multilayer film supported by the curved surface of the lens (as can be seen in Fig. 2); the multilayer film comprises a polarizer layer (Fig. 2 at least polarizer 34) and an optical retarder layer (wave plate 28); and the apparatus includes a head-mounted device (See Fig. 1 para 31).
Yang does not specifically disclose that the polarizer layer has a thickness of between 1 microns and 20 microns and comprises an arrangement of anisotropic electrically conductive elements selected from the group consisting of microwires, nanowires, and molecular moieties; the optical retarder layer has a molecular alignment based on a liquid crystal phase; the optical retarder layer has an optical retarder layer thickness of between 1 micron and 10 microns.
However, McCarthy discloses polarizer layer has a thickness that may be adjusted, to yield a desired balance between contrast and transmissivity (para 27) and comprises an arrangement of anisotropic electrically conductive elements selected from the group consisting of microwires, nanowires, and molecular moieties (para 54) to form a grating capable of behaving as a wire grid polarizer.
The thickness of the polarizer layer is a result-effective variable. In that, optimizing the thickness of the nanowires to optimize the desired contrast and transmissivity.
Further, Taguchi discloses an optical retarder layer has a molecular alignment based on a liquid crystal phase; the optical retarder layer has an optical retarder layer thickness of between 1 micron and 10 microns (para 152), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). (See MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the polarizer layer has a thickness of between 1 microns and 20 microns and comprises an arrangement of anisotropic electrically conductive elements selected from the group consisting of microwires, nanowires, and molecular moieties; the optical retarder layer has a molecular alignment based on a liquid crystal phase; the optical retarder layer has an optical retarder layer thickness of between 1 micron and 10 microns.
Regarding Claim 3. Taguchi further discloses the optical retarder layer thickness is between 1 micron and 5 microns (See para 152).
Regarding Claim 5. McCarthy further discloses polarizer layer has a thickness that may be adjusted, to yield a desired balance between contrast and transmissivity (para 27) and comprises an arrangement of anisotropic electrically conductive elements selected from the group consisting of microwires, nanowires, and molecular moieties (para 54) to form a grating capable of behaving as a wire grid polarizer.
The thickness of the polarizer layer is a result-effective variable. In that, optimizing the thickness of the nanowires to optimize the desired contrast and transmissivity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the polarizer layer thickness is between 2 microns and 8 microns is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 9. Yang further discloses the optical retarder layer is a quarter- wave plate (para 44).
Regarding Claim 11. Yang further discloses the multilayer film further comprises: an antireflection layer (para 42); a reflective polarizer (Fig. 2 reflective polarizer 30); an optically clear adhesive layer located between the antireflection layer and the reflective polarizer (para 44); and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer located between the reflective polarizer and the optical retarder layer (para 45).
Regarding Claim 12. Yang further discloses the display includes a liquid crystal display (para 32).
Regarding Claim 13. Yang further discloses the head-mounted device is a virtual reality device (para 33 “Visual content (e.g., image data for still and/or moving images) may be provided to display system”).
Regarding Claim 14. Yang further discloses the head-mounted device is an augmented reality device (para 33).
Regarding Claim 15. Yang further discloses the optical configuration is configured to form an image of the display at an eyebox, the eyebox being a location at which a user may view the image of the display when the user wears the head-mounted device (See Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 16. Yang further discloses the multilayer film has a multilayer film thickness of between 50 microns and 200 microns (para 58).
Regarding Claim 21. Yang further discloses the ultrathin polarizer layer is configured to improve a dimensional stability of the multilayer film (Fig. 2 at least polarizer 34, it is noted that the presence of polarizer 34 on film in optical 20 will inherently improve a dimensional stability).
Claim 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy as applied to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6. As stated above Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy do not specifically disclose that the curved surface of the lens has a magnitude of radius of curvature of a magnitude of radius of curvature of less than 200 mm.
However, Yang discloses the lens has a curved surface (para 41). The magnitude of radius of curvature is a result-effective variable. In that, optimizing the radius of curvature would optimize the desired focal length in order to better view an image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the curved surface of the lens has a magnitude of radius of curvature of a magnitude of radius of curvature of less than 200 mm to optimize the focal length is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 7. As stated above Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy do not specifically disclose that the curved surface of the lens has a magnitude of radius of curvature of between 50 mm and 100 mm.
However, Yang discloses the lens has a curved surface (para 41). The magnitude of radius of curvature is a result-effective variable. In that, optimizing the radius of curvature would optimize the desired focal length in order to better view an image.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the curved surface of the lens has a magnitude of radius of curvature of between 50 mm and 100 mm to optimize the focal length is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 8. As stated above Yang, Taguchi and Sakai disclose all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy do not specifically disclose that the lens assembly has a magnitude of optical retardance uniformity equal to or better than 0.5 nm (+/- 0.5 nm) over a field of view of the lens assembly.
The magnitude of optical retardance uniformity is a result-effective variable. In that, it is desirable to maintain optical retardance uniformity for optical uniformity in the display device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the lens assembly has a magnitude of optical retardance uniformity equal to or better than 0.5 nm (+/- 0.5 nm) over a field of view of the lens assembly to maintain optical retardance uniformity is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 10. As stated above Yang, Taguchi and McCarthy discloses all the limitations of base claim 1.
Yang further discloses the multilayer film further comprises an adhesive layer (para 44)
Yang, Taguchi and Sakai do not specifically disclose that the adhesive layer has an elastic modulus less than 1 MPa.
The magnitude of elastic modulus of an adhesive layer is a result-effective variable. In that a lower modulus would allow for improved shock resistance and bonding, while a higher modulus would be more resistant to deformation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before applicant’s effective filing date to include that the adhesive layer has an elastic modulus less than 1 MPa to achieve the balance of bonding strength and deformation is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights