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 06/10/2026 has been entered. Claim 19 has been amended. Claim 20 has been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112(b) rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the specification defines the term “about”, the definition being “within one or more standard deviations, or within ±30%, 20%, 10%, or 5% of the stated value,” therefore the limitations are clear and objective. However, this paragraph provides multiple definitions for what “about” means. It is unclear if “about” should be interpreted as within one or more standard deviations, or within ±30%, or within ±20%, etc. Further, “one or more standard deviations” encompasses an unlimited range of numbers. If one were to interpret “about” to mean “within one or more standard deviations,” there would be no further limitation.
Regarding the 103 rejections, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues there is no rational motivation to combine the anti-peep teaching of Chen or Jeon with the head-mounted display lens assembly of Smith, and that such a combination would render Smith unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the combination would narrow the eye box to a point of failure, making it nearly impossible for a user to maintain a visible image if their eye or the headset shifted slightly. However, the examiner disagrees that the combination would narrow the eye box to a point of failure. The viewing angle is a design/engineering choice and one of ordinary skill in the art could have chosen to have a narrower viewing angle which is still in a usable range. Further, the invention of the instant application is directed towards a head-mounted display (¶0004) with the same structure as the combination of Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon, therefore if the inclusion of the phase retardation layer with the stated refractive index configuration would render the head-mounted display of Smith inoperable as a head-mounted display, this would indicate that the instant application invention is also unable to be used as a head-mounted display as well. The motivation of an anti-peep effect simply refers to the narrower viewing angle that is caused by light incident on the phase retardation layer at an angle to become polarized. Applicant’s motivation, stated in the arguments, is “to selectively change the polarization of oblique side light (SLGT) such that it is blocked by a second polarizer to mitigate ghost-image artifacts in a folded optical path.” This means that the light incident on the phase retardation layer at an angle becomes polarized, which is the same function that is occurring to achieve the anti-peep effect of Chen and Jeon, even though it is not the same motivation. Examiner notes "The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings."); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) (discussed below)." Since the anti-peep effect just refers to having a narrower viewing angle, the language has been added to the motivation in the rejections below, however the rejections are the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-14 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 3, 5 and 16, the limitations “in a range of about [numerical value] to about [numerical value]” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
These limitations are unclear because there are no specific ranges which are defined by “about” and it is therefore unclear whether a numerical value just outside these ranges would read on the limitations or not, and if so, specifically how close the value must be to the given range of “about [numerical value]” to read on the limitation.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “in a range of
Claims 5-14 are dependent on claim 3 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Claims 17-18 are dependent on claim 16 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 pol1
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) 1-4, 6-11, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 20210271082 A1), hereinafter Smith, in view of Chen et al. (US 20230205008 A1), hereinafter Chen, and further in view of Jeon et al. (US 20180059451 A1), hereinafter Jeon.
Regarding independent claim 1, Smith discloses a lens assembly including an incident side on which light is incident and an exit side opposite to the incident side (Fig. 6A), the lens assembly comprising:
a first polarization layer disposed adjacent to the incident side (“a linear polarizer element may be needed if the light from the display medium 610 is not linearly polarized”; Fig. 6A; ¶0064);
a second polarization layer (622; Fig. 6A; ¶0070) disposed between the first polarization layer and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a first quarter wave plate (624; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the second polarization layer (622) and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a partially reflective mirror layer (626; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the first quarter wave plate (624) and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a second quarter wave plate (628; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the partially reflective mirror layer (626) and the exit side (Fig. 6A); and
a third polarization layer (630; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed adjacent to the exit side (Fig. 6A).
Smith does not disclose a phase retardation layer disposed between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer; wherein the phase retardation layer has a first phase retardation refractive index along a first direction, has a second phase retardation refractive index equal to the first phase retardation refractive index along a second direction, and has a third phase retardation refractive index along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and wherein the first phase retardation refractive index and the second phase retardation refractive index are different from the third phase retardation refractive index.
However, Chen teaches a similar assembly comprising a first polarization layer (POL1; Fig. 20; ¶0081), a second polarization layer (POL2; Fig. 20; ¶0081), and a wave plate (250; Fig. 20; ¶0042) disposed between the second polarization layer (POL2) and the exit side (Fig. 20) (further, examiner notes that wave plate 250 is a half wave plate, which can be equivalent to two adjacent quarter wave plates). Chen further teaches a phase retardation layer (270; Fig. 20; ¶0081) disposed between the first polarization layer (POL1) and the second polarization layer (POL2) (Fig. 20); wherein the phase retardation layer (270) has a first phase retardation refractive index (nx; ¶0081) along a first direction (direction X; ¶0081), has a second phase retardation refractive index (ny; ¶0081) along a second direction (direction Y; ¶0081), and has a third phase retardation refractive index (nz; ¶0081) along a third direction perpendicular (direction Z; ¶0081) to the first direction and the second direction (¶0081).
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 Smith to incorporate a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer as taught by Chen for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Chen does not teach the second phase retardation refractive index is equal to the first phase retardation refractive index and the first phase retardation refractive index and the second phase retardation refractive index are different from the third phase retardation refractive index.
However, Jeon teaches a similar assembly comprising a first polarization layer (130; Fig. 2A; ¶0048), a second polarization layer (140; Fig. 2A; ¶0048), and a phase retardation layer (120; Fig. 2A; ¶0049, ¶0054) disposed between the first polarization layer (130) and the second polarization layer (140) (Fig. 2A), wherein the phase retardation layer (120) has a first phase retardation refractive index (Nx; Fig. 6; ¶0123) along a first direction (Fig. 6; ¶0123), has a second phase retardation refractive index (Ny; Fig. 6; ¶0123) equal to the first phase retardation refractive index (Nx) along a second direction (¶0125), and has a third phase retardation refractive index (Nz; Fig. 6; ¶0123) along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 6; ¶0123), and wherein the first phase retardation refractive index (Nx) and the second phase retardation refractive index (Ny) are different from the third phase retardation refractive index (Nz) (Fig. 6; ¶0125).
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 Smith in view of Chen to incorporate the first and second phase retardation refractive indexes being equal to each other and different from the third phase retardation refractive index as taught by Jeon for the purpose of having ensuring that the content is shown only to the user in a narrow viewing angle (¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon).
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 1, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose the phase retardation layer includes a material having refractive index anisotropy.
However, Chen and Jeon both teach the phase retardation layer (270 of Chen, 120 of Jeon) includes a material having refractive index anisotropy (inherent that there must be refractive index anisotropy in order to impart a retardation to the light, and further explicitly disclosed in ¶0041 of Jeon).
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 Smith to incorporate the a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen; ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 2, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose the phase retardation layer has a phase retardation value (Rth) in a range of about 500 nm to about 1500 nm with respect to visible light, wherein the phase retardation value (Rth) of the phase retardation layer satisfies the following equation: Rth={(Nx+Ny)/2-Nz}d, wherein Nx denotes the first phase retardation refractive index, Ny denotes the second phase retardation refractive index, Nz denotes the third phase retardation refractive index, and d denotes a thickness of the phase retardation layer.
However, Chen teaches the phase retardation value (Rth) of the phase retardation layer satisfies the following equation: Rth={(Nx+Ny)/2-Nz}d (¶0081), wherein Nx denotes the first phase retardation refractive index, Ny denotes the second phase retardation refractive index, Nz denotes the third phase retardation refractive index, and d denotes a thickness of the phase retardation layer (¶0081).
Neither Chen nor Jeon explicitly disclose Rth is in a range of about 500 nm to about 1500 nm with respect to visible light. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the first, second, and third polarization layers, the first and second quarter wave plates, the partially reflective mirror layer, and the phase retardation layer wherein the first and second phase retardation refractive indexes are equal to each other and different from the third phase retardation refractive index, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have Rth be between 500 nm and 1500 nm with respect to visible light for the purpose of ensuring the content of the screen is shown only to the user (¶0008 of Jeon).
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 Smith to incorporate the a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer and for Rth to be between 500 nm and 1500 nm with respect to visible light for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen; ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 2, as set forth above. Neither Smith nor Chen discloses the material having the refractive index anisotropy includes a discotic material or a liquid crystal material.
However, Jeon teaches the material having the refractive index anisotropy includes a discotic material or a liquid crystal material (124; Fig. 2A; ¶0049).
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 Smith in view of Chen to incorporate the liquid crystal material as taught by Jeon for the purpose of being able to switch between a narrow viewing angle mode and a wide viewing angle mode (¶0004-¶0008 of Jeon).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 3, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose the phase retardation layer changes a polarization state of light incident in a direction different from the third direction, and the first direction and the second direction are directions on a plane on which the phase retardation layer is disposed.
However, Chen teaches the phase retardation layer (270) changes a polarization state of light incident in a direction different from the third direction (¶0083), and the first direction and the second direction are directions on a plane on which the phase retardation layer (270) is disposed (¶0081).
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 Smith to incorporate a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer as taught by Chen for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 3, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein light transmission axes of the first polarization layer (¶0064) and the second polarization layer (622) are parallel to each other (¶0070).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 3, as set forth above. Smith further discloses wherein the first polarization layer is a linear polarization layer (¶0064).
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 3, as set forth above. Smith further discloses the first polarization layer (¶0064) is in a film form (although not explicitly disclosed by Smith, it is implicit that the first polarization layer would be in a film form since it is common for polarization layers to be films).
In the event that the first polarization layer is not in a film form, Smith discloses polarization layers that are films (¶0011, ¶0040), demonstrating that it is known that a film is an equivalent structure in the art to other types of layers.
Therefore, because a film is one of an art-recognized equivalent for a polarization layer before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute a film for the original form of the first polarization layer, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143(I)(B). Further, 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 polarization layer to be in a film form for the purpose of ensuring it can mold to attach to a surface that is not perfectly flat.
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 9, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer are spaced apart from each other.
However, Chen teaches the first polarization layer (POL1) and the phase retardation layer (270) are spaced apart from each other (Fig. 20).
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 Smith to incorporate the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer being spaced apart from each other for the purpose of being able to include more light directing elements between the two layers (Fig. 20 of Chen).
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 10, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose a material having a refractive index isotropy is disposed between the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer.
However, Chen teaches a material having a refractive index isotropy (SUB1, SUB2; Fig. 20; ¶0043) is disposed between the first polarization layer (POL1) and the phase retardation layer (270) (Fig. 20).
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 Smith to incorporate aa material having a refractive index isotropy disposed between the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer for the purpose of being able to include more light directing elements between the two layers (Fig. 20, ¶0043 of Chen).
Regarding independent claim 15, Smith discloses a display device comprising:
a display panel (610; Fig. 6A; ¶0063) including a base layer (610; Fig. 6A) disposed on a plane defined based on a first direction and a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 6A), and a light emitting element (612; Fig. 6A; ¶0067) disposed on the base layer (610) (Fig. 6A; ¶0067); and
a lens assembly (620; Fig. 6A; ¶0063) disposed on the display panel (610), wherein the lens assembly (620) transmits light provided from the display panel (610), and the lens assembly (620) includes an incident side adjacent to the display panel (610) and an exit side opposite to the incident side (Fig. 6A; ¶0063),
wherein the lens assembly (620) comprises:
a first polarization layer disposed adjacent to the incident side (“a linear polarizer element may be needed if the light from the display medium 610 is not linearly polarized”; Fig. 6A; ¶0064);
a second polarization layer (622; Fig. 6A; ¶0070) disposed between the first polarization layer and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a first quarter wave plate (624; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the second polarization layer (622) and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a partially reflective mirror layer (626; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the first quarter wave plate (624) and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a second quarter wave plate (628; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the partially reflective mirror layer (626) and the exit side (Fig. 6A); and
a third polarization layer (630; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed adjacent to the exit side (Fig. 6A).
Smith does not disclose a phase retardation layer disposed between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer; wherein the phase retardation layer has a first phase retardation refractive index along the first direction, has a second phase retardation refractive index equal to the first phase retardation refractive index along the second direction, and has a third phase retardation refractive index along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and the first phase retardation refractive index and the second phase retardation refractive index are different from the third phase retardation refractive index.
However, Chen teaches a similar assembly comprising a first polarization layer (POL1; Fig. 20; ¶0081), a second polarization layer (POL2; Fig. 20; ¶0081), and a wave plate (250; Fig. 20; ¶0042) disposed between the second polarization layer (POL2) and the exit side (Fig. 20) (further, examiner notes that wave plate 250 is a half wave plate, which can be equivalent to two adjacent quarter wave plates). Chen further teaches a phase retardation layer (270; Fig. 20; ¶0081) disposed between the first polarization layer (POL1) and the second polarization layer (POL2) (Fig. 20); wherein the phase retardation layer (270) has a first phase retardation refractive index (nx; ¶0081) along a first direction (direction X; ¶0081), has a second phase retardation refractive index (ny; ¶0081) along a second direction (direction Y; ¶0081), and has a third phase retardation refractive index (nz; ¶0081) along a third direction perpendicular (direction Z; ¶0081) to the first direction and the second direction (¶0081).
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 Smith to incorporate a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer as taught by Chen for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Chen does not teach the second phase retardation refractive index is equal to the first phase retardation refractive index and the first phase retardation refractive index and the second phase retardation refractive index are different from the third phase retardation refractive index.
However, Jeon teaches a similar assembly comprising a first polarization layer (130; Fig. 2A; ¶0048), a second polarization layer (140; Fig. 2A; ¶0048), and a phase retardation layer (120; Fig. 2A; ¶0049, ¶0054) disposed between the first polarization layer (130) and the second polarization layer (140) (Fig. 2A), wherein the phase retardation layer (120) has a first phase retardation refractive index (Nx; Fig. 6; ¶0123) along a first direction (Fig. 6; ¶0123), has a second phase retardation refractive index (Ny; Fig. 6; ¶0123) equal to the first phase retardation refractive index (Nx) along a second direction (¶0125), and has a third phase retardation refractive index (Nz; Fig. 6; ¶0123) along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 6; ¶0123), and wherein the first phase retardation refractive index (Nx) and the second phase retardation refractive index (Ny) are different from the third phase retardation refractive index (Nz) (Fig. 6; ¶0125).
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 Smith in view of Chen to incorporate the first and second phase retardation refractive indexes being equal to each other and different from the third phase retardation refractive index as taught by Jeon for the purpose of having ensuring that the content is shown only to the user in a narrow viewing angle (¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon).
Regarding claim 16, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the display device of claim 15, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose the phase retardation layer has a phase retardation value (Rth) in a range of about 500 nm to about 1500 nm with respect to visible light, wherein the phase retardation value (Rth) of the phase retardation layer satisfies the following equation: Rth={(Nx+Ny)/2-Nz}d, wherein Nx denotes the first phase retardation refractive index, Ny denotes the second phase retardation refractive index, Nz denotes the third phase retardation refractive index, and d denotes a thickness of the phase retardation layer.
However, Chen teaches the phase retardation value (Rth) of the phase retardation layer satisfies the following equation: Rth={(Nx+Ny)/2-Nz}d (¶0081), wherein Nx denotes the first phase retardation refractive index, Ny denotes the second phase retardation refractive index, Nz denotes the third phase retardation refractive index, and d denotes a thickness of the phase retardation layer (¶0081).
Neither Chen nor Jeon explicitly disclose Rth is in a range of about 500 nm to about 1500 nm with respect to visible light. However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the first, second, and third polarization layers, the first and second quarter wave plates, the partially reflective mirror layer, and the phase retardation layer wherein the first and second phase retardation refractive indexes are equal to each other and different from the third phase retardation refractive index, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have Rth be between 500 nm and 1500 nm with respect to visible light for the purpose of ensuring the content of the screen is shown only to the user (¶0008 of Jeon).
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 Smith to incorporate the a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer and for Rth to be between 500 nm and 1500 nm with respect to visible light for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen; ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Regarding claim 17, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the display device of claim 16, as set forth above. Smith does not disclose the phase retardation layer includes a material having refractive index anisotropy, and the phase retardation layer changes a polarization state of light incident in a direction different from the third direction.
However, Chen and Jeon both teach the phase retardation layer (270 of Chen, 120 of Jeon) includes a material having refractive index anisotropy (inherent that there must be refractive index anisotropy in order to impart a retardation to the light, and further explicitly disclosed in ¶0041 of Jeon). Further, Chen teaches the phase retardation layer (270) changes a polarization state of light incident in a direction different from the third direction (¶0083).
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 Smith to incorporate the a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen; ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Regarding claim 18, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the display device of claim 16, as set forth above. Smith further discloses light transmission axes of the first polarization layer (¶0064), the second polarization layer (622), and the third polarization layer (630) are parallel to each other (¶0070 discloses the first and second polarization layers have parallel transmission axes and ¶0069 discloses a configuration wherein the second and third polarization layers have parallel transmission axes).
Regarding independent claim 19, Smith discloses an electronic device comprising:
a display panel (610; Fig. 6A; ¶0063) including a base layer (610; Fig. 6A) disposed on a plane defined based on a first direction and a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 6A), and a light emitting element (612; Fig. 6A; ¶0067) disposed on the base layer (610) (Fig. 6A; ¶0067); and
a lens assembly (620; Fig. 6A; ¶0063) disposed on the display panel (610), wherein the lens assembly (620) transmits light provided from the display panel (610), and the lens assembly (620) includes an incident side adjacent to the display panel (610) and an exit side opposite to the incident side (Fig. 6A; ¶0063),
wherein the lens assembly (620) comprises:
a first polarization layer disposed adjacent to the incident side (“a linear polarizer element may be needed if the light from the display medium 610 is not linearly polarized”; Fig. 6A; ¶0064);
a second polarization layer (622; Fig. 6A; ¶0070) disposed between the first polarization layer and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a first quarter wave plate (624; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the second polarization layer (622) and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a partially reflective mirror layer (626; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the first quarter wave plate (624) and the exit side (Fig. 6A);
a second quarter wave plate (628; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed between the partially reflective mirror layer (626) and the exit side (Fig. 6A); and
a third polarization layer (630; Fig. 6A; ¶0065) disposed adjacent to the exit side (Fig. 6A).
Smith does not disclose a phase retardation layer disposed between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer; wherein the phase retardation layer has a first phase retardation refractive index along the first direction, has a second phase retardation refractive index equal to the first phase retardation refractive index along the second direction, and has a third phase retardation refractive index along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction, and the first phase retardation refractive index and the second phase retardation refractive index are different from the third phase retardation refractive index.
However, Chen teaches a similar assembly comprising a first polarization layer (POL1; Fig. 20; ¶0081), a second polarization layer (POL2; Fig. 20; ¶0081), and a wave plate (250; Fig. 20; ¶0042) disposed between the second polarization layer (POL2) and the exit side (Fig. 20) (further, examiner notes that wave plate 250 is a half wave plate, which can be equivalent to two adjacent quarter wave plates). Chen further teaches a phase retardation layer (270; Fig. 20; ¶0081) disposed between the first polarization layer (POL1) and the second polarization layer (POL2) (Fig. 20); wherein the phase retardation layer (270) has a first phase retardation refractive index (nx; ¶0081) along a first direction (direction X; ¶0081), has a second phase retardation refractive index (ny; ¶0081) along a second direction (direction Y; ¶0081), and has a third phase retardation refractive index (nz; ¶0081) along a third direction perpendicular (direction Z; ¶0081) to the first direction and the second direction (¶0081).
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 Smith to incorporate a phase retardation film between the first polarization layer and the second polarization layer as taught by Chen for the purpose of obtaining a better anti-peep effect in a narrow viewing angle (¶0012 of Chen), i.e., having a narrower viewing angle.
Chen does not teach the second phase retardation refractive index is equal to the first phase retardation refractive index and the first phase retardation refractive index and the second phase retardation refractive index are different from the third phase retardation refractive index.
However, Jeon teaches a similar assembly comprising a first polarization layer (130; Fig. 2A; ¶0048), a second polarization layer (140; Fig. 2A; ¶0048), and a phase retardation layer (120; Fig. 2A; ¶0049, ¶0054) disposed between the first polarization layer (130) and the second polarization layer (140) (Fig. 2A), wherein the phase retardation layer (120) has a first phase retardation refractive index (Nx; Fig. 6; ¶0123) along a first direction (Fig. 6; ¶0123), has a second phase retardation refractive index (Ny; Fig. 6; ¶0123) equal to the first phase retardation refractive index (Nx) along a second direction (¶0125), and has a third phase retardation refractive index (Nz; Fig. 6; ¶0123) along a third direction perpendicular to the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 6; ¶0123), and wherein the first phase retardation refractive index (Nx) and the second phase retardation refractive index (Ny) are different from the third phase retardation refractive index (Nz) (Fig. 6; ¶0125).
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 Smith in view of Chen to incorporate the first and second phase retardation refractive indexes being equal to each other and different from the third phase retardation refractive index as taught by Jeon for the purpose of having ensuring that the content is shown only to the user in a narrow viewing angle (¶0008-¶0009, ¶0125 of Jeon).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210271082 A1) in view of Chen (US 20230205008 A1, further in view of Jeon (US 20180059451 A1), and further in view of Yasuda (US 20170160452 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 3, as set forth above. Neither Smith, Chen, nor Jeon explicitly disclose each of the first to third phase retardation refractive indices is in a range of about 1.5 to about 1.9.
However, Yasuda teaches a similar assembly comprising multiple polarization layers (Fig. 1; ¶0063) and a phase retardation layer (phase difference layers 21, 22; Fig. 1; ¶0295), wherein each of the first to third phase retardation refractive indices is in a range of about 1.5 to about 1.9 (¶0295). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05.
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 Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon to have each of the first to third phase retardation refractive indices in a range of about 1.5 to about 1.9 for the purpose of suppressing oblique tint change (¶0055 of Yasuda) and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210271082 A1) in view of Chen (US 20230205008 A1), further in view of Jeon (US 20180059451 A1), and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20250052938 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 9, as set forth above. Neither Smith, Chen, nor Jeon disclose an adhesive layer disposed between the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer, wherein the phase retardation layer is coupled to the first polarization layer through the adhesive layer.
However, there are only a few possibilities as to the configuration of the phase retardation layer with respect to the first polarization layer – that they are either spaced apart or physically coupled together, and if they are physically coupled together, whether they are attached via an adhesive layer or directly in contact together. 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. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, Zhu teaches a similar lens assembly (Fig. 1) comprising multiple polarization layers, wherein the polarization layers are adhered to each other using adhesive layers (Fig. 2; ¶0040).
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 Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon to have an adhesive layer disposed between the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer, wherein the phase retardation layer is coupled to the first polarization layer through the adhesive layer for the purpose of attaching the first polarization layer and the phase retardation layer together and since there are only a few possible solutions and 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.
Regarding claim 13, Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon discloses the lens assembly of claim 3, as set forth above. Neither Smith, Chen, nor Jeon disclose the phase retardation layer and the first polarization layer are in contact with each other.
However, there are only a few possibilities as to the configuration of the phase retardation layer with respect to the first polarization layer – that they are either spaced apart or physically coupled together, and if they are physically coupled together, whether they are attached via an adhesive layer or directly in contact together. 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. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Further, Zhu teaches a similar lens assembly (Fig. 1) comprising multiple polarization layers, wherein there are no adhesive layers between the polarization layers (¶0042).
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 Smith in view of Chen and further in view of Jeon to have the phase retardation layer and the first polarization layer in contact with each other for the purpose of improving the freedom of design of the lens assembly (¶0042 of Zhu) and since there are only a few possible solutions and 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.
Regarding claim 14, Smith in view of Chen, further in view of Jeon, and further in view of Zhu discloses the lens assembly of claim 13, including the phase retardation layer and the first polarization layer in contact with each other, as set forth above. Therefore, Smith in view of Chen, further in view of Jeon, and further in view of Zhu also teach the phase retardation layer is a layer formed on the first polarization layer through a coating or deposition process. This limitation is drawn to a product by process and it fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim. Citing In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” See MPEP § 2113. Therefore, this limitation is taught as long as the phase retardation layer and the first polarization layer are in contact with each other, which is already taught (see claim 13 rejection above).
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 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 July 17th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights