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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 7/30/2025. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 11 are amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “device comprising the louver film” and “a manufacturing method of a device … providing the louver film as part of the device” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1, 5-9, 11-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2015/0261079 to Jeon et al. (hereinafter Jeon).
Regarding claim 1, Jeon discloses a louver film (Figs. 1-8) comprising: a louver part (sliced roll having structure shown in Figs. 5A-5B, 7, 8) having a winding structure (Figs. 5A-5B) wherein a laminated body (Fig. 4B) including a light transmittance layer (“a first transparent film 101”, Fig. 4B; [0045]) and a light shielding layer (“dyes that include light absorbing particles as shown in FIG. 4B are spread on one surface of the first film 101 to form a dye layer 103”, Fig. 4B; [0045]) is wound, wherein the light transmittance layer includes a film (first film 101, Fig. 5A) and a function layer (second film 105 and adhesive tape in “the first and second films 101 and 105 in the laminated state are wound on the cylindrical core 41 in a state in which, an adhesive tape is attached on side of the first and second films 101 and 105 along the length direction of the cylindrical core 41”, Fig. 5A; [0048]), wherein the louver part comprises: a light transmittance part defined by the light transmittance layer, and a light shielding part defined by the light shielding layer (Figs. 1-8).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Jeon discloses a core material (core 41, Fig. 5A), wherein the winding structure is a structure wherein the laminated body is wound around the core material (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Jeon discloses an outer appearance of a cross-section in a plane orthogonal to an axis direction of the core material is a circle, an oval shape, or a polygon (Fig. 5A).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Jeon discloses an optical element (core 41, Fig. 5-8), and wherein the winding structure of the louver part is arranged on a periphery of the optical element, in a way such that the winding structure is wound around the optical element (core 41 or hollow central volume both constitute optical elements, Figs. 5-8). Note: While Jeon does not disclose optical characteristics related to core 41, the core nonetheless inherently possesses optical properties and necessarily influences optical performance of the combined core and winding structure.
Regarding claim 8, Jeon discloses a device comprising the louver film of claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Jeon discloses a manufacturing method of a louver film including the louver part, the method comprising: manufacturing a winding body by winding a laminated body including a material layer for a light transmittance layer for forming a light transmittance part, and a material layer for a light shielding layer for forming a light shielding part (“the first and second films 101 and 105, in a laminated state, are wound around the circumference of a cylindrical core 41”, Fig. 5A-5B; [0148]), wherein the light transmittance layer includes a film (first film 101, Fig. 5A) and a function layer (second film 105 and adhesive tape in “the first and second films 101 and 105 in the laminated state are wound on the cylindrical core 41 in a state in which, an adhesive tape is attached on side of the first and second films 101 and 105 along the length direction of the cylindrical core 41”, Fig. 5A; [0048]); and forming a louver part having a winding structure by cutting the winding body in a direction of intersecting with a winding axis direction of the winding body (Figs. 1-8).
Regarding claim 11, Jeon discloses arranging the winding structure of the louver part on a periphery of an optical element, to have the winding structure be wound around the optical element (core 41 or hollow central volume both constitute optical elements; Figs. 1-8).
Regarding claim 12, Jeon discloses manufacturing method of a device (Fig. 1), the method comprising: manufacturing a louver film by the method of claim 9; and providing the louver film as a part of the device (Fig. 1; [0031]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 19, Jeon discloses manufacturing method of a device (Figs. 1-8; [0031]-[0056]), the method comprising: manufacturing a louver film by the method of claim 10; and providing the louver film as a part of the device (Figs. 1-8; [0031]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 20, Jeon discloses manufacturing method of a device (Figs. 1-8; [0031]-[0056]), the method comprising: manufacturing a louver film by the method of claim 11; and providing the louver film as a part of the device (Figs. 1-8; [0031]-[0056]).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of WO 2018225714 to Iwama et al. (hereinafter Iwama).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Jeon discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the light transmittance layer is defined by a layer-shape member, wherein a total light transmittance rate of the light transmittance layer is 70% or higher, and the light shielding layer is defined by a layer-shape member, wherein a total light transmittance rate of the light shielding layer is 5% or lower.
Iwama discloses a louvered film device (Figs. 1-6) wherein the light transmittance layer is defined by a layer-shape member, wherein a total light transmittance rate of the light transmittance layer is 70% or higher (“light transmission band 11 preferably has a light transmittance of 75% or more when light is incident on only the light transmission band 11 along the Z direction, and more preferably 85% or more. Specifically, it is preferably 75% or more and 100% or less, and more preferably 85% or more and 100% or less” in “Light Transmission Band” Section), and the light shielding layer is defined by a layer-shape member, wherein a total light transmittance rate of the light shielding layer is 5% or lower (“light shielding band 12 preferably has a light transmittance of 40% or less when light is incident on only the light shielding band 12 along the X direction, and more preferably 10% or less. Specifically, 0% to 40% is preferable, and 0% to 10% is more preferable. Such light transmittance has sufficient light blocking properties” in “Shading Zone” Section).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed transmission characteristics as taught by Iwama with the system as disclosed by Jeon. The motivation would have been to control privacy and light-shielding without impairing visibility of underlying displays (“Background-Art” Section).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Jeon discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a ratio of a height of the light shielding part corresponding to a thickness of the louver part to a width of the light transmittance part according to a direction of proceeding from a winding center to an outer margin on a plane orthogonal to a thickness direction of the louver part is 0.5 or higher.
Iwama discloses a louvered film device (Figs. 1-6) wherein a ratio of a height of the light shielding part (“thickness of the louver layer 10 is preferably 100 μm or more and 5000 μm or less” in “Louver Layer” Section) corresponding to a thickness of the louver part to a width of the light transmittance part (“width of each of the plurality of light transmission bands 11 is preferably 50 μm or more and 200 μm or less” in “Louver Layer” Section) according to a direction of proceeding from a winding center to an outer margin on a plane orthogonal to a thickness direction of the louver part is 0.5 or higher.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed aspect ratio as taught by Iwama with the system as disclosed by Jeon. The motivation would have been to control privacy and light-shielding without impairing visibility of underlying displays (“Background-Art” Section).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Jeon discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a proportion occupied by an area of the light shielding part to a total area of a plane orthogonal to a thickness direction of the louver part is 50% or lower.
Iwama discloses a louvered film device (Figs. 1-6) wherein a proportion occupied by an area of the light shielding part to a total area of a plane orthogonal to a thickness direction of the louver part is 50% or lower (“From the viewpoint of achieving both peeping prevention and visibility of the display screen in the louver layer 10, the average width of the plurality of light transmission bands 11 is preferably 50 μm or more and 200 μm or less, and is 100 μm or more and 150 μm or less. Is more preferable. For the same reason, the average width of the plurality of light shielding bands 12 is preferably 1 μm or more and 50 μm or less, and more preferably 10 μm or more and 30 μm or less”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the claimed thickness ratio as taught by Iwama with the system as disclosed by Jeon. The motivation would have been to control privacy and light-shielding without impairing visibility of underlying displays (“Background-Art” Section).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, as applied to claim 9, and further in view of JP 2007171539 to Enomoto (hereinafter Enomoto).
Regarding claim 10, Jeon discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose at least one selected from the material layer for the light transmittance layer and the material layer for the light shielding layer includes a layer-shaped member which has curability, and the manufacturing method further comprises: performing a curing processing of the layer-shaped member having curability in the winding body before the forming the louver part having the winding structure by cutting after the manufacturing the winding body by winding the laminated body.
Enomoto discloses at least one selected from the material layer for the light transmittance layer and the material layer for the light shielding layer includes a layer-shaped member which has curability (“the resin dispenser 44, a resin 43 that absorbs energy and is cured is dropped onto a mold roll 47 to form a resin pool, and is pressure-bonded to the transparent film 41”), and the manufacturing method further comprises: performing a curing processing of the layer-shaped member having curability in the louvered body before the forming the louver part by cutting after the manufacturing the louvered body (“the resin dispenser 44, a resin 43 that absorbs energy and is cured is dropped onto a mold roll 47 to form a resin pool, and is pressure-bonded to the transparent film 41” & Fig. 6 shows lamination prior to forming louvered structure, see corresponding written description for Figs. 4-6).
As noted in previous rejections above, Jeon discloses winding the laminated structure to provide a louvered body.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a curable light shielding layer as taught by Enomoto with the system as disclosed by Jeon. The motivation would have been to apply the light-absorbing element in an efficient manufacturing process controlled by rollers and material dispenser.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/225 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “an express illustration of ‘a device’ and ‘a manufacturing method of a device’ are not necessary for understanding by one of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter to be patented”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The portion of 35 CFR 1.83 referenced in Applicant’s argument adds that conventional features and non-essential details “should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g. a labeled rectangular box)”. There are no such illustrations of the claimed “device” and implied integration. 35 C.F.R. 1.83 does not absolve the need to depict a claimed feature when it is not necessary for an artisan to understand the invention. Examiner notes that there is no objection to Applicant’s depiction of the claimed louver film, but rather an objection to “device comprising the louver film” and “the louver film as part of the device”. In light of the Specifications, Applicant discloses “when the louver part 30 is applied to the device, and is not specifically limited” ([0053]) and “louver film 100 as above may be used while being included in a device … another embodiment of the disclosure relates to a device including the louver film 100 … including mounting the louver film 100 as a part of the device” ([0157],[0158]). Applicant further discloses the device: “the device may be a device which has a function of introducing and/or emitting a light, and more preferably, it is a device having a display function” and “[a]lternatively, the device may be a smart device such as a smartphone, a smart watch, a tablet terminal, a wearable terminal, etc.” and “[a]lternatively, the device may be a smart device has a function of managing health information such as photoplethysmography, etc.” ([0158]). While Applicant discloses a device comprising the louvered part, the drawings are wholly directed to the louver film alone and do not depict claimed features such as the device or the integration of the louvered film with the device and the integration with the device is necessary to properly understand the claimed invention (Claims 12-19). The integration of the louver film and the device would not be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Taking examples provided in the cited prior art, Jeon depicts integration of a louvered film in a device in Figs. 1-2 via abutting/laminating and Enomoto depicts device integration in Fig. 1 via abutting/laminating. Further, US PG Pub. 2012/0134472 depicts a louvered film integration within a free-space optical system (Fig. 1) and US Pat. 5,777,665 depicts a kit including a louvered light-blocking film (Fig. 9).
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “”Jeon …[is] silent as to a layered structure of the first transparent film 101” and that “the adhesive tape of Jeon is not analogous to the claimed function layer as adhesive tape is not a part wound with the first and second films 101 and 105”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a first note, the claimed “is wound” does not require a degree to which a part or layer traverses a particular circumferential extent. As the adhesive tape in Jeon is disclosed as “attached on side of the first and second films 101 and 105 along the length direction of the cylindrical core” and the first film, second film, and adhesive tape are necessarily wound, as claimed. Further, while the light transmittance layer is would and the light transmittance layer includes a function layer, the claim does not require the function layer to be wound. Some structure of the light transmittance layer is wound but the claim does not require the entirety of the light transmittance layer to be wound. Lastly, the first transparent film 101 and second transparent film 105 read on the claimed light transmittance layer. While in the planar stat depicted in Fig. 4C, the first and second films are not in direct contact, there is direct contact in a winding state in Fig. 5A and thus the two films form an intervening layer between adjacent dye layer 103 comprising a film and a function layer as claimed.
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 CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872