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 (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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed March 19, 2026. Claims 1-11 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 12-37 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed March 18, 2026, with respect to claims 12-17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, and 32-37 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 12-17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, and 32-37 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18-20 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.
In regard to independent claim 18, applicant’s arguments, on pages 13-14 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 18, as newly amended have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses all of the limitations of claim 18, as set forth below.
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026, with respect to claims 21 and 22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 21, applicant’s arguments, on pages 14-15 that the claimed retardation could not be discovered through routine optimization has been fully considered and is appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Namely, Wong et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 21, except “a wave plate that has a retardation of less than 147 nm.” It is noted that where 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)). Applicant further argues that the retardation as claimed is critical to mitigate a double bounce artifact within a catadioptric lens system. However, the claim does not require a catadioptric system. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, claims 18-22 are rejected, as set forth below.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beon et al. (US 2024/0118473 A1) in view of Lin (US 2006/0209239 A1).
In regard to claim 18, Beon et al. discloses a display (see e.g. paragraph [0061]) comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 3):
an array of display pixels configured to produce light (see e.g. paragraph [0061]);
a linear polarizer 510 that is formed over the array of display pixels (see e.g. paragraphs [0099]-[0100] and Figures 1 and 3);
a quarter wave plate (i.e. part of third compensation layer 526, see e.g. paragraph [0113] and Figure 3) with a first optical axis (i.e. slow axis, see e.g. paragraph [0113]); and
a half wave plate (i.e. part of third compensation layer 526, see e.g. paragraph [0113] and Figure 3),
wherein the half wave plate (i.e. part of third compensation layer 526, see e.g. paragraph [0113] and Figure 3) has a second optical axis (i.e. slow axis, see e.g. paragraph [0113]) and wherein the first optical axis is separated from the second optical axis by a 60 degree angle (see e.g. paragraph [0108] for 60 degrees between slow axes of quarter and half wave plates).
Beon et al. fails to disclose
a biaxial quarter wave plate,
a biaxial half wave plate that is interposed between the biaxial quarter wave plate and the linear polarizer.
However, Lin discloses (see e.g. Figure 5):
a biaxial quarter wave plate 302 (see e.g. paragraph [0024]),
a biaxial half wave plate 304 that is interposed between the biaxial quarter wave plate 302 and the linear polarizer 104 (see e.g. paragraph [0024]).
Given the teachings of Lin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beon et al. with a biaxial quarter wave plate, a biaxial half wave plate that is interposed between the biaxial quarter wave plate and the linear polarizer.
Providing the biaxial films would result in improved anti-reflection characteristics at wide viewing angles (see e.g. paragraphs [0024] and [0034] of Lin).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beon et al. (US 2024/0118473 A1) in view of Lin (US 2006/0209239 A1) and further in view of Sharp et al. (US 2021/0041711 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Beon et al., in view of Lin, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 18 above, but fails to disclose
a positive C-plate that is adjacent to the biaxial quarter wave plate, wherein the biaxial quarter wave plate is interposed between the positive C-plate and the biaxial half wave plate.
However, Sharp et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 9):
a positive C-plate +C that is adjacent to the quarter wave plate QW, wherein the quarter wave plate QW is interposed between the positive C-plate +C and the half wave plate HW.
Given the teachings of Sharp et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beon et al., in view of Lin, with a positive C-plate that is adjacent to the biaxial quarter wave plate, wherein the biaxial quarter wave plate is interposed between the positive C-plate and the biaxial half wave plate.
Incorporating a positive C-plate allows for minimization of transmission of off-axis light rays (see e.g. paragraph [0007] of Sharp et al.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beon et al. (US 2024/0118473 A1) in view of Lin (US 2006/0209239 A1) in view of Sharp et al. (US 2021/0041711 A1) and further in view of Han et al. (KR 20170068861).
In regard to claim 20, Beon et al., in view of Lin and Sharp et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 19 above, but fails to disclose
a positive B-plate interposed between the biaxial half wave plate and the linear polarizer; and a negative B-plate interposed between the biaxial half wave plate and the linear polarizer, wherein:
each one of the biaxial quarter wave plate, the biaxial half wave plate, the positive B-plate, and the negative B-plate has a first refractive index along a first axis that lies within a plane that includes that plate, a second refractive index along a second axis that lies within the plane, and a third refractive index along a third axis that is orthogonal to the plane;
the first and second axes are orthogonal;
for each one of the biaxial quarter wave plate and the biaxial half wave plate, the first refractive index is greater than the third refractive index and the third refractive index is greater than the second refractive index;
for the positive B-plate, the third refractive index is greater than the first refractive index and the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index; and
for the negative B-plate, the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index and the second refractive index is greater than the third refractive index.
However, Han et al. discloses using a positive B-plate and negative B-plate stack (see e.g. page 5, fourth paragraph of English translation). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a configuration in which each one of the biaxial quarter wave plate, the biaxial half wave plate, the positive B-plate, and the negative B-plate has a first refractive index along a first axis that lies within a plane that includes that plate, a second refractive index along a second axis that lies within the plane, and a third refractive index along a third axis that is orthogonal to the plane; the first and second axes are orthogonal; for each one of the biaxial quarter wave plate and the biaxial half wave plate, the first refractive index is greater than the third refractive index and the third refractive index is greater than the second refractive index; for the positive B-plate, the third refractive index is greater than the first refractive index and the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index; and for the negative B-plate, the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index and the second refractive index is greater than the third refractive index, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Han et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Beon et al., in view of Lin and Sharp et al., with a positive B-plate interposed between the biaxial half wave plate and the linear polarizer; and a negative B-plate interposed between the biaxial half wave plate and the linear polarizer, wherein: each one of the biaxial quarter wave plate, the biaxial half wave plate, the positive B-plate, and the negative B-plate has a first refractive index along a first axis that lies within a plane that includes that plate, a second refractive index along a second axis that lies within the plane, and a third refractive index along a third axis that is orthogonal to the plane; the first and second axes are orthogonal; for each one of the biaxial quarter wave plate and the biaxial half wave plate, the first refractive index is greater than the third refractive index and the third refractive index is greater than the second refractive index;
for the positive B-plate, the third refractive index is greater than the first refractive index and the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index; and for the negative B-plate, the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index and the second refractive index is greater than the third refractive index.
Providing the positive and negative B-plate stack would decrease brightness in the diagonal direction in a dark state which improves contrast. Further, selecting the orientation of the axes of the plate and the values of the refractive index of the films would allow for compensation of the particular configuration and would have predictable results.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wong et al. (US 2021/0294012 A1).
In regard to claim 21, Wong et al. discloses an electronic device 200 (denoted “optical system” for displaying an image, see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0018]) comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
a display system 10 (denoted “pixelated display”, see e.g. paragraph [0018] and Figure 2) configured to produce light (i.e. using light emitting pixels 11, see e.g. paragraph [0018] and Figure 2); and
a lens module 160 (denoted “folded optical system”, see e.g. paragraph [0027] and Figure 2) that receives the light from the display system 10 (see e.g. paragraph [0027] where it is noted that 160 is adapted to receive a pixelated image from 10), wherein the lens module comprises 160:
a partially reflective layer 40 (denoted “partial reflector”, see e.g. paragraph [0018] and Figure 2);
a reflective polarizer 70 (see e.g. paragraph [0018], Figure 2);
a lens element 90 (denoted “second optical lens”, see e.g. paragraph [0024] and Figure 2) that is interposed between the partially reflective layer 40 and the reflective polarizer 70 (see e.g. Figure 2); and
a wave plate 60 (denoted “second retarder”, see e.g. paragraph [0024]) that is interposed between the partially reflective layer 40 and the reflective polarizer 70.
Wong et al. fails to disclose
a wave plate that has a retardation of less than 147 nm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using a wave plate that has a retardation of less than 147 nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wong et al. with a wave plate that has a retardation of less than 147 nm.
Selecting the retardation to adequately retard the incident light for a particular application/wavelength would have predictable results and is considered within ordinary skill.
In regard to claim 22, Wong et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 21 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the retardation is 144 nm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the retardation is 144 nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wong et al. with wherein the retardation is 144 nm.
Selecting the retardation to adequately retard the incident light for a particular application/wavelength would have predictable results and is considered within ordinary skill.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30, and 32-37 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance.
In regard to independent claim 12 and dependent claims 13-17, 36, and 37, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 12, including the limitations, “a lens element having a convex surface and a concave surface; a partially reflective mirror that is interposed between the lens element and the display system; a first biaxial half wave plate, wherein the lens element is interposed between the partially reflective mirror and the first biaxial half wave plate and wherein the first biaxial half wave plate is a first Z-plate; and a first biaxial quarter wave plate that is interposed between the lens element and the first biaxial half wave plate, wherein the first biaxial quarter wave plate is a second Z-plate.”
In regard to independent claim 23 and dependent claims 24, 27, 28, 30, 32-35, the closest prior art references fail to disclose, either singly or in combination, all of the limitations of claim 23, including the limitations, “lens module that receives the light from the display system, wherein the lens module comprises: a lens element having a convex surface and a concave surface; a partially reflective mirror that is interposed between the lens element and the display system; a first biaxial curved wave plate, wherein the lens element is interposed between the partially reflective mirror and the first biaxial curved wave plate; and a second biaxial curved wave plate that is interposed between the lens element and the first biaxial curved wave plate.”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights