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 Arguments
Applicant’s remarks of June 25, 2026 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that primary reference Yan, in combination with secondary reference Minami, fails to disclose or suggest the presently-claimed invention (see pages 7-8 of the Remarks of June 25, 2026). Specifically, Applicant argues that secondary reference Minami fails to teach the claimed phase retardation values (125 nm to 250 nm) of the thickness of the compensation film(s) because in Minami the phase retardation values are variable and adjustable by voltage, rather than having fixed values (Ibid, including image captures of paragraphs [0271], [0272] and FIG. 17 of Minami).
Applicant appears to be arguing features which are not claimed. The present claims do not appear to impose any requirement as to whether phase retardation values of the claimed compensation films are variable or fixed. Independent Claim 1, and dependent Claims 11 and 15, merely require a phase retardation of the thickness of the compensation film(s) is between 125 nanometers (nm) and 250nm.
Therefore, Minami’s teachings of a suitable range of retardation being between 200 nm [or 210 nm] and 260 nm, and the motivation for selecting such values for Yan (high Stokes parameter, which achieves modulation over a broader bandwidth [e.g., full range of visible light], and wide viewing angle range), as explained in the Non-Final Office Action of April 1, 2026, are still deemed valid.
It appears that Applicant may also be asserting that the liquid crystal layers 500, 600 of Minami could not provide a teaching with respect to the device of Yan because of the nature of the material which permits variable retardation (see pages 7-8 of the Remarks of June 25, 2026). However, the present claims do not appear to impose any sort of chemical composition, i.e., type of material, requirements for the claimed compensation films.
Thus, the present claims remain rejected based upon the combination of Yan and Minami.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al., US 2024/0094455 A1 (previously-cited) in view of Minami et al., US 2023/0280632 A1 (previously-cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Yan discloses: A head mounted electronic device, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a dimming module, having a normal direction (device 10 has a normal direction, e.g., a Z-direction of an X-Y-Z spatial orientation; FIGS. 1-3 of Yan);
wherein the dimming module has a first transmittance T1 in the normal direction and a second transmittance T2 in an oblique direction, an included angle between the oblique direction and the normal direction is 60 degrees, and the head mounted electronic device satisfies: [(T1 - T2) / T1] * 100% < 50% (more brightness and color uniformity across viewing angles, and viewing angle uniformity for the system; paragraphs [0059], [0070], [0076], [0078], [0080], [0089] of Yan; also note that because the layered article of Yan satisfies all of the physical structure and chemical composition requirements of Claim 1, it is presumed that the layered article of Yan exhibits the same optical characteristics, specifically a low difference in transmission when comparing light transmitted in a zero degree [normal] direction to light transmitted in a 60 degree [oblique] direction; see rejection of Claim 1 based upon 35 USC 112(b) above; see also MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II, citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990));
wherein the dimming module comprises a first polarizing film, a second polarizing film (device 10 may include linear polarizer 16, as well as reflective polarizer 30 and linear polarizer 34, wherein linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis aligned with the pass axis of reflective polarizer 30, but linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis that is orthogonal to the pass axis of linear polarizer 16; paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0039] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan), a panel disposed between the first polarizing film and the second polarizing film, and a first compensation film disposed between the first polarizing film and the panel (a liquid crystal display panel 222 may be interposed between a first / front linear polarizer 214 and a second / rear linear polarizer 228 [having orthogonal pass axes and orthogonal absorption axes], and several layers may be interposed therebetween, e.g., compensating layer 226 between (A) either of first / front linear polarizer 214 or second / rear linear polarizer 228 and (B) panel 222; paragraphs [0021], [0084]-[0091] and FIGS. 8, 9 of Yan; however, note also that either of lens elements 26-1 or 26-2 may be identified as the claimed “panel”, and wherein quarter wave plate stack 116 may include plate 120 or plate 126 [either plate corresponding to the claimed “first compensation film”], or alternatively, either of quarter wave plates 18, 28 or half wave plates 138, 140 may be identified as the claimed “first compensation film”; see FIGS. 2-7 of Yan);
a third compensation film (either of C-plate 120, 126; Abstract and paragraph [0058] and FIGS. 7-9 of Yan).
Yan does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of the phase retardation, such that: wherein phase retardation of the thickness of the first compensation film is between 125 nanometers (nm) and 250nm.
Minami is related to Yan with respect to multi-layered optical articles for head-mounted display.
Minami teaches: wherein phase retardation of the thickness of the first compensation film is between 125 nanometers (nm) and 250nm (a suitable range of retardations is not less than 200 nm / 210 nm and not more than 260 nm; paragraphs [0248], [0249], [0450], [0457], [0458] and FIGS. 6, 42, 43 of Minami; the Office notes that the claim does not specify either a positive value of retardation or a negative value of retardation, and thus the claim is presumed to encompass either possibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the phase retardation amount of Minami for the device of Yan because such retardation enables a high Stokes parameter (i.e., close to 1, e.g., greater than 0.9) which achieves modulation over a broader bandwidth (e.g., full range of visible light) and wide viewing angle range, as taught in paragraphs [0248], [0249] and FIG. 6 of Minami.
Regarding Claim 4, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first compensation film is a C-type compensation film (plate 120 may be a C-plate; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 5, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a first quarter-wave plate disposed between the first compensation film and the panel, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed between the panel and the second polarizing film (quarter wave plates 18, 28; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 6, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses: wherein the first quarter-wave plate and the second quarter-wave plate have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal; paragraph [0044] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 7, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises an anti-reflection film, and the second polarizing film is disposed between the anti-reflection film and the second quarter-wave plate (polarizers 30, 34 are between anti-reflection coating 38 and quarter wave plates 28, 18; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 8, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first compensation film is an A-type compensation film (quarter wave plates 18, 28 or half wave plates 138, 140 may be identified as the claimed “first compensation film” and may be A-plates; paragraphs [0058], [0066] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 9, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a second compensation film disposed between the first polarizing film and the panel, and the first compensation film and the second compensation film have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 18 [disposed between linear polarizer 16 and display panel 222] in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 28 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal, and the optical axes of half wave plate [+A HWP] 138 and half wave plate [+A HWP] 140 may be orthogonal; paragraphs [0044], [0074], [0081] and FIGS. 2-4, 7-9 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 10, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein the second compensation film is an A-type compensation film (any of quarter wave plates 18, 28 or half wave plates 138, 140 may be A-plates; paragraphs [0058], [0066] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 11, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses: wherein total phase retardation of the thickness of the first compensation film and the second compensation film is between 125 nanometers (nm) and 250nm (a suitable range of retardations is not less than 200 nm / 210 nm and not more than 260 nm; paragraphs [0248], [0249], [0450], [0457], [0458] and FIGS. 6, 42, 43 of Minami; the Office notes that the claim does not specify either a positive value of retardation or a negative value of retardation, and thus the claim is presumed to encompass either possibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the phase retardation amount of Minami for the device of Yan because such retardation enables a high Stokes parameter (i.e., close to 1, e.g., greater than 0.9) which achieves modulation over a broader bandwidth (e.g., full range of visible light) and wide viewing angle range, as taught in paragraphs [0248], [0249] and FIG. 6 of Minami.
Regarding Claim 12, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a first quarter-wave plate disposed between the second compensation film and the panel, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed between the panel and the second polarizing film (when half wave plate 138 is identified as the second compensation film, then quarter wave plate 28 is between half wave plate [HWP +A] 138 and lens 26-1, and quarter wave plate 18 is between lens 26-1 and polarizer 16; FIGS. 2-7 of Yan, but see especially FIGS. 2 and 7 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 13, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the first quarter-wave plate and the second quarter-wave plate have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal; paragraph [0044] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 14, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises an anti-reflection film, and the second polarizing film is disposed between the anti-reflection film and the second quarter-wave plate (polarizers 30, 34 are between anti-reflection coating 38 and quarter wave plates 28, 18; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 15, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a third compensation film disposed between the first polarizing film and the panel (C-plate 126 may be disposed between polarizer 16 and display panel 222; Abstract and paragraph [0058] and FIGS. 7-9 of Yan), and total phase retardation of the thickness of the first compensation film, the second compensation film, and the third compensation film is between 125nm and 250nm (a suitable range of retardations is not less than 200 nm / 210 nm and not more than 260 nm; paragraphs [0248], [0249], [0450], [0457], [0458] and FIGS. 6, 42, 43 of Minami; the Office notes that the claim does not specify either a positive value of retardation or a negative value of retardation, and thus the claim is presumed to encompass either possibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the phase retardation amount of Minami for the device of Yan because such retardation enables a high Stokes parameter (i.e., close to 1, e.g., greater than 0.9) which achieves modulation over a broader bandwidth (e.g., full range of visible light) and wide viewing angle range, as taught in paragraphs [0248], [0249] and FIG. 6 of Minami.
Regarding Claim 16, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 15 and further discloses: wherein the third compensation film is a C-type compensation film (plates 120, 126 are C-plates; Abstract and paragraph [0058] and FIGS. 7-9 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 17, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a first quarter-wave plate disposed between the second compensation film and the panel, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed between the panel and the second polarizing film (when half wave plate 138 is identified as the second compensation film, then quarter wave plate 28 is between half wave plate [HWP +A] 138 and lens 26-1, and quarter wave plate 18 is between lens 26-1 and polarizer 16; FIGS. 2-7 of Yan, but see especially FIGS. 2 and 7 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 18, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 17 and further discloses: wherein the first quarter-wave plate and the second quarter-wave plate have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal; paragraph [0044] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 19, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 17 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises an anti-reflection film, and the second polarizing film is disposed between the anti-reflection film and the second quarter-wave plate (polarizers 30, 34 are between anti-reflection coating 38 and quarter wave plates 28, 18; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 20, Yan-Minami discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first polarizing film and the second polarizing film have mutually perpendicular transmission axes (device 10 may include linear polarizer 16, as well as reflective polarizer 30 and linear polarizer 34, wherein linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis aligned with the pass axis of reflective polarizer 30, but linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis that is orthogonal [i.e., perpendicular] to the pass axis of linear polarizer 16; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights