Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 17 February 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-20, and 22 are pending.
Claim 12 is objected to.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13 of the remarks, filed 17 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sakai et al. (US 2003/0081320) and Noh et al. (WO 2021/060708, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to.
Claim 12 is 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, for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the orientable optical material includes metallic rods that provide passive polarization and intensity control, as generally set forth in claim 12, the invention including the particular limitations recited in claims 1 and 9, from which claim 12 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 2003/0081320) (hereafter Sakai), in view of Noh et al. (WO 2021/060708, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Noh).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0029]), comprising: a diffuser material having a planar surface opposite a surface with a surface profile, the surface profile being a surface diffuser (see at least Fig. 1, surface irregularities layer 3); and at least one optical material, wherein the at least one optical material includes an orientable optical material, wherein the orientable optical material is within a volume of the diffuser material (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0028], where internal diffusion layer 2 includes diffusive material 5) and is orientable in an applied field (see at least Fig. 6 and paragraph [0034], where an electric field is applied to the diffusive material in order to form anisotropic shapes, which are oriented with the electric field).
Sakai does not specifically disclose a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions, wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile.
However, Noh teaches a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 2), comprising: a diffuser material having a planar surface opposite a surface with a surface profile the surface profile being a surface diffuser (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [39], where layer 220 is a diffuser material having a planar lower surface opposite an upper surface profile that is a surface diffuser) and at least one optical material (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [40], where the diffusion pattern layer 220 can include particles or beads), wherein the at least one optical material includes a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [41]), wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile (see at least Fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Sakai to include the teachings of Noh so that the at least one optical material includes a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions, wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile for the purpose of improving the light diffusion at the surface (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [41] of Noh).
Regarding claim 2, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the at least one optical material is present in an organic phase (see at least paragraph [0067], where the diffusive material is styrene, which is an organic material).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the at least one optical material is an assembly of particles (see at least Fig. 1) and that particle size affects the light diffusion (see at least paragraph [0026]).
Noh also teaches that the at least one optical material is an assembly of particles, wherein a particle size ranges from about 20 nm to about 1000 nm (see at least paragraph [46], where the size of the particles ranges from 15 nm to 1000 nm).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Sakai as modified by Noh to include the further teachings of Noh so that a particle size ranges from about 20 nm to about 1000 nm for the purpose of diffusing light of desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 4, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the orientable optical material has a shape chosen from linear, circular, spiral, and combinations thereof (see at least Figs. 1 and 6 and paragraph [0064], where the shape is a spheroid, but can also be a rectangular parallelepiped or cylinder).
Regarding claim 8, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses a system, comprising: a light source; and the hybrid diffuser of claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0002], where the hybrid diffuser can be used with a display device, which includes a light source).
Regarding claim 9, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses a method of using a system, comprising: illuminating a light source so that light emits from the light source; and receiving the light emitted from the light source in the hybrid diffuser of claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0002], where operating a display device with the hybrid diffuser includes illuminating a light source from the display and receiving that light in the hybrid diffuser).
Regarding claim 10, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Sakai also discloses that the hybrid diffuser emits a modified scatter profile (see at least paragraphs [0022]-[0027], where the antiglare layer modifies the scintillation effect in its scatter profile).
Additionally, Noh also teaches that the hybrid diffuser emits a modified scatter profile of light (see at least paragraph [40], where the scatter profile is uniform).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 2003/0081320) (hereafter Sakai), in view of Noh et al. (WO 2021/060708, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Noh) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2020/0400864) of record (hereafter Suzuki).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai as modified by Noh does not specifically disclose that the surface profile is defined by a height and size distribution of scatter centers.
However, Suzuki teaches a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 1(a)), wherein the surface profile is defined by a height and size distribution of scatter centers (see at least Figs. 1(a) and 1(b)).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Sakai as modified by Noh to include the teachings of Suzuki so that the surface profile is defined by a height and size distribution of scatter centers for the purpose of optimizing the size of the light diffusing particles in order to obtain the desired diffusion characteristics such as wavelength and haze.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US 2008/0273144) (hereafter Yao), in view of Noh et al. (WO 2021/060708, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Noh).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 3 and the abstract, diffusing polarizer), comprising: a diffuser material having a planar surface opposite a surface with a surface profile, the surface profile being a surface diffuser (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0026], microstructure layer 220 and substrate 210); and at least one optical material, wherein the at least one optical material includes an orientable optical material, wherein the orientable optical material is within a volume of the diffuser material (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0024], where microstructure layer 220 includes liquid crystal drops 222a) and is orientable in an applied field (see at least paragraph [0024], where an electric field is applied to enhance the alignment).
Yao does not specifically disclose a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions, wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile.
However, Noh teaches a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 2), comprising: a diffuser material having a planar surface opposite a surface with a surface profile the surface profile being a surface diffuser (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [39], where layer 220 is a diffuser material having a planar lower surface opposite an upper surface profile that is a surface diffuser) and at least one optical material (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [40], where the diffusion pattern layer 220 can include particles or beads), wherein the at least one optical material includes a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [41]), wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile (see at least Fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Yao to include the teachings of Noh so that the at least one optical material includes a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions, wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile for the purpose of improving the light diffusion at the surface (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [41] of Noh).
Regarding claim 2, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yao also discloses that the at least one optical material is present in an organic phase (see at least paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Noh also teaches that the at least one optical material is an assembly of particles, wherein a particle size ranges from about 20 nm to about 1000 nm (see at least paragraph [46], where the size of the particles ranges from 15 nm to 1000 nm).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Yao as modified by Noh to include the further teachings of Noh so that a particle size ranges from about 20 nm to about 1000 nm for the purpose of diffusing light of desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 5, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yao also discloses that the at least one optical material includes an optical material that is a liquid crystal polymer (see at least paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yao also discloses a system, comprising: a light source; and the hybrid diffuser of claim 1 (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph [0030], where backlight module 300 includes a light source 310 and the diffusing polarizer 200).
Regarding claim 9, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yao also discloses a method of using a system, comprising: illuminating a light source so that light emits from the light source; and receiving the light emitted from the light source in the hybrid diffuser of claim 1 (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraph [0030], where backlight module 300 includes a light source 310 that emits light and the diffusing polarizer 200 receives the emitted light).
Regarding claim 10, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Yao also discloses that the hybrid diffuser emits a modified scatter profile of light (see at least paragraphs [0026]-[0028], where the on-axial brightness is improved).
Regarding claim 22, Yao as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yao also discloses that the diffuser material includes elongated or rod-like liquid crystal polymer structures aligned to polarize light (see at least paragraph [0025]).
Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komanduri et al. (US 2019/0011801) (hereafter Komanduri), in view of Noh et al. (WO 2021/060708, all citations are to the English language machine translation) of record (hereafter Noh).
Regarding claim 1, Komanduri discloses a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 6), comprising: a diffuser material having a planar surface opposite a surface with a surface profile, the surface profile being a surface diffuser (see at least Fig. 6 and paragraphs [0090]-[0091], variable liquid crystal optic 60 with surface relief micro-structure diffuser 65); and at least one optical material, wherein the at least one optical material includes an orientable optical material, wherein the orientable optical material is within a volume of the diffuser material (see at least Fig. 6 and paragraph [0094], where variable liquid crystal optic 60 includes liquid crystals 29) and is orientable in an applied field (see at least Fig. 6 and paragraph [0094]).
Komanduri does not specifically disclose a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions, wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile.
However, Noh teaches a hybrid diffuser (see at least Fig. 2), comprising: a diffuser material having a planar surface opposite a surface with a surface profile the surface profile being a surface diffuser (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [39], where layer 220 is a diffuser material having a planar lower surface opposite an upper surface profile that is a surface diffuser) and at least one optical material (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [40], where the diffusion pattern layer 220 can include particles or beads), wherein the at least one optical material includes a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [41]), wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile (see at least Fig. 2).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Komanduri to include the teachings of Noh so that the at least one optical material includes a surface optical material, the surface optical material being present on the surface profile in a form of protrusions, wherein the protrusions are smaller in scale relative to the surface profile for the purpose of improving the light diffusion at the surface (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [41] of Noh).
Regarding claim 2, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Komanduri also discloses that the at least one optical material is present in an organic phase (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 3, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Noh also teaches that the at least one optical material is an assembly of particles, wherein a particle size ranges from about 20 nm to about 1000 nm (see at least paragraph [46], where the size of the particles ranges from 15 nm to 1000 nm).
Therefore, 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 hybrid diffuser of Komanduri as modified by Noh to include the further teachings of Noh so that a particle size ranges from about 20 nm to about 1000 nm for the purpose of diffusing light of desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 4, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Komanduri also discloses that the orientable optical material has a linear shape (see at least Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Komanduri also discloses that the at least one optical material includes an optical material that is a liquid crystal polymer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 8, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Komanduri also discloses a system, comprising: a light source; and the hybrid diffuser of claim 1 (see at least Fig. 10 and paragraphs [0110]-[0113], where system 145 includes optical/electrical transducer 151, which can be a light source, and variable liquid crystal optic 100).
Regarding claim 9, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Komanduri also discloses a method of using a system, comprising: illuminating a light source so that light emits from the light source; and receiving the light emitted from the light source in the hybrid diffuser of claim 1 (Fig. 10 and paragraphs [0110]-[0113], where system 145 includes optical/electrical transducer 151, which can be a light source that emits light, and variable liquid crystal optic 100 that receives the emitted light).
Regarding claim 10, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Komanduri also discloses that the hybrid diffuser emits a modified scatter profile of light (see at least paragraphs [0026]-[0028], where the on-axial brightness is improved).
Regarding claim 11, Komanduri as modified by Noh discloses all of the limitations of claim 9.
Komanduri also discloses that the orientable optical material includes a liquid crystal polymer (see at least Fig. 4 and paragraph [0084]) that provides active scatter and polarization control (see at least paragraph [0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872