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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated December 15th, 2023 and February 18th, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on February 5th, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Khan teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a display panel configured to produce light for images (See, e.g., pixel array 14 in Fig. 6); and
a lens module that receives the light from the display panel (See, e.g., system 20 in Fig. 6), wherein the lens module comprises:
first and second lens elements (See, e.g., lenses 26 and 54 in Fig. 6 respectively);
a partially reflective mirror that is interposed between the first lens element and the display panel (See, e.g., mirror 22 in Fig. 6); and
a circular reflective polarizer that is coated on a surface of the first lens element (See, e.g., plate 28 in Fig. 6 and paragraph [0033] which explains this circularly polarizes light passing through), wherein the circular reflective polarizer is interposed between the first and second lens elements and wherein the circular reflective polarizer is in direct contact with the first lens element (See, e.g., Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 2, Khan teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the lens module further comprises: a clean-up polarizer that is interposed between the second lens element and the circular reflective polarizer (See, e.g., polarizer 30 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Khan teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the clean-up polarizer is coated on the circular reflective polarizer (Note that as this entire optical stack is gapless, all of the elements can be considered to be “on” each other, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 4, Khan teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the lens module further comprises: a layer of optically clear adhesive that attaches the clean-up polarizer to the circular reflective polarizer (See, e.g., paragraph [0052] which explains that a clear adhesive can be used, and note that the entire optical stack cited above is bonded together, meeting this limitation).
Regarding claim 6, Khan teaches the device set forth above and further teaches wherein the lens module further comprises: a layer of optically clear adhesive that is attached to the second lens element (See, e.g., paragraph [0052] which explains that a clear adhesive can be used, and note that the entire optical stack cited above is bonded together, meeting this limitation).
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052 A1) in view of Sulai et al. (US 11,372,239 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Khan teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the circular reflective polarizer comprises a cholesteric liquid crystal layer.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Sulai teaches the use of a polarizer having a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (See, e.g., column 2 lines 1-15 which explain this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Khan to have its circular reflective polarizer comprise a cholesteric liquid crystal layer, as taught by Sulai, for the purpose of having more control over the light passing through the device (See, e.g., column 2 lines 1-15 of Sulai which explain that a polarizer such as this allows for a narrow band of wavelengths to pass the device, allowing for more precision/control).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052 A1) in view of Kuzuhara et al. (US 2018/0356631 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Khan teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure of an anti-reflective coating on the second lens element, wherein the second lens element is interposed between the anti-reflective coating and the circular reflective polarizer.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Kuzuhara teaches the use of an anti-reflective coating on an optical element (See, e.g., paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Khan to include an anti-reflecting coating on a user-side of the second lens, as taught by Kuzuhara, for the purpose of reducing unwanted reflectance after the light has been manipulated by the polarizers and lenses.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khan et al. (US 2018/0039052 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Khan teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein the display panel is curved.
However, it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Khan to have a curved display panel, for the purpose of enhancing brightness and having more control over the light passing the device (Note a curved display can achieve brighter points as light can converge). Further, the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination as a user could achieve the same output with a planar or curved display.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the circular reflective polarizer provides optical power to the lens module.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first lens element includes an embedded air-filled gap.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first lens element includes a solid material with an embedded gap and a filler material in the embedded gap and wherein the filler material has a different refractive index than the solid material.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the first lens element includes an embedded gap and wherein the circular reflective polarizer is formed in the embedded gap.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights