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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 5/26/2026. Claims 1 and 8 are amended and claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 5/26/2026. These drawings are unacceptable. New Figures 9-10 are not entered because they contain new matter. The depiction of the device and manufacturing method were not originally evidenced as possessed by Applicant. In the original disclosure, Applicant has evidenced a louvered film and manufacturing thereof, but not possession of the genus captured in Claims 12-20. The only correction envisioned as acceptable would be to only provide Figures 1-8, as originally filed, and cancel the subject matter captured in Claims 12-20.
Specification
The amendment filed 5/26/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: added language corresponding to new drawings.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-20 recites “providing the louver film as a part of the device” and “a device comprising the louver film”. Applicant has not evidenced possession of the genus claimed in the captured claims as there is no specie disclosed within the genus and no description commensurate in scope with the scope of the claimed invention. In the 5/26/2026 Remarks, Applicant points to at least [0156] as providing support for the claims and newly submitted drawings relating the louver film to a device. While this portion of the Specifications states “a method including mounting the louver film 100 as a part of the device”, there is no further clarification of the method of manufacture and the final product. There is no description of the mounting nor the configuration of the device having a louver film. Had the newly filed Fig. 9 been originally filed, there would have been a structural relationship evidenced that would have supported the “mounting … as part of” that would have been sufficient evidence of possession to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Such a configuration resembles the prior art device (e.g. Jeon Fig. 1-2 or Ishibashi Fig. 2) incorporating the louver film and contextualizes that which an artisan would understand to have evidenced possession. Alternatively, were the configuration of a device and a louver film to have necessarily been singular or at least clearly definable, then an artisan could have understood there to be possession of the claimed device. Applicant provides species of devices (e.g. “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 smartphone, a smart watch, a tablet terminal, a wearable terminal, etc.”) but not a specie of the device with a louver film as a part of the device. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not have understood Applicant to have disclosed a louver film on a display device, within a display device, within a structure capable of use with a display device, or otherwise. There is no evidence of possession of generically providing a device with the louvered film and newly filed Figures 9-10 do not evidence possession.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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 1, 5-9, 11-12, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by US PG Pub. 2015/0261079 to Jeon et al. (hereinafter Jeon) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Jeon in view of WO 2017061448 to Ishibashi (hereinafter Ishibashi).
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 resin (“plurality of light transmission portions 33b may be manufactured in a film shape that is made of a transparent polymer resin that does not have light absorbing particles” and “referring to FIGS. 4A to 9, a process of manufacturing the light absorbing film 33 will be successively described”; [0038],[0044]) 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]), including a material different from the resin film and coated on at least one surface of the resin film (“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”), 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).
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that films 101 and 105 of Jeon “are not analogous to the resin film and the function layer including a material different from the resin film”. In previously rejections, cited portions of Jeon evidence that light transmission portions are embodied as transparent polymer resin films that do not have light absorbing particle ([0038],[0044]) and light absorbing layers include absorbing particles giving the appears of a black color ([0036],[0045]-[0049]). As there continues to be disagreement as to the evidence presented, there appears to implicitly exist a disagreement as to the metes and bounds of the claim and/or the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed in light of the Specifications. While Jeon only discloses a transparent resin material and a dye material as compositions of the layers relied upon in the rejection above, Jeon does not explicitly exclude the materials from respective other layers. In other words, it appears to be Applicant’s position that the claim requires the light transmittance layer to exclude all material constituents of the function layer and for the function layer to exclude all material constituents of the light transmittance layer. Note: Examiner holds that this is not required in the claim.
Nonetheless, such a structure would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Ishibashi.
Ishibashi discloses a louver film (Fig. 8C) comprising: a louver part (metal 55, Fig. 8C-9A) having a winding structure (Fig. 9A) wherein a laminated body including a light transmittance layer (“flat tape-like base film 52 made of, for example, a flat tape with a narrow width is wound around a flat roller 51 having a square cross section with rounded corners” & “a thin and thin flat tape-like base film 52 made of transparent resin”) and a light shielding layer (“the metal 54 of the vapor deposition source 53 is evaporated on one surface of the base film 52 to form a thin metal film 55”) is wound (Fig. 9A), wherein the light transmittance layer includes a resin film (“a thin and thin flat tape-like base film 52 made of transparent resin”) and a function layer including a material different from the resin film and coated on at least one surface of the resin film (“the metal 54 of the vapor deposition source 53 is evaporated on one surface of the base film 52 to form a thin metal film 55”), and 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. 8C, 9A).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude materials from respective layers as taught by Ishibashi with the system as disclosed by Jeon. The motivation would have been to provide a metallic reflective layer and a light transmission material.
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 resin (“plurality of light transmission portions 33b may be manufactured in a film shape that is made of a transparent polymer resin that does not have light absorbing particles” and “referring to FIGS. 4A to 9, a process of manufacturing the light absorbing film 33 will be successively described”; [0038],[0044]) 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]), including a material different from the resin film and coated on at least one surface of the resin film (“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”); 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).
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that films 101 and 105 of Jeon “are not analogous to the resin film and the function layer including a material different from the resin film”. In previously rejections, cited portions of Jeon evidence that light transmission portions are embodied as transparent polymer resin films that do not have light absorbing particle ([0038],[0044]) and light absorbing layers include absorbing particles giving the appears of a black color ([0036],[0045]-[0049]). As there continues to be disagreement as to the evidence presented, there appears to implicitly exist a disagreement as to the metes and bounds of the claim and/or the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed in light of the Specifications. While Jeon only discloses a transparent resin material and a dye material as compositions of the layers relied upon in the rejection above, Jeon does not explicitly exclude the materials from respective other layers. In other words, it appears to be Applicant’s position that the claim requires the light transmittance layer to exclude all material constituents of the function layer and for the function layer to exclude all material constituents of the light transmittance layer. Note: Examiner holds that this is not required in the claim.
Nonetheless, such a structure would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of the teachings of Ishibashi.
Ishibashi discloses a louver film (Fig. 8C) comprising: a louver part (metal 55, Fig. 8C-9A) having a winding structure (Fig. 9A) wherein a laminated body including a light transmittance layer (“flat tape-like base film 52 made of, for example, a flat tape with a narrow width is wound around a flat roller 51 having a square cross section with rounded corners” & “a thin and thin flat tape-like base film 52 made of transparent resin”) and a light shielding layer (“the metal 54 of the vapor deposition source 53 is evaporated on one surface of the base film 52 to form a thin metal film 55”) is wound (Fig. 9A), wherein the light transmittance layer includes a resin film (“a thin and thin flat tape-like base film 52 made of transparent resin”) and a function layer including a material different from the resin film and coated on at least one surface of the resin film (“the metal 54 of the vapor deposition source 53 is evaporated on one surface of the base film 52 to form a thin metal film 55”), and 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. 8C, 9A).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to exclude materials from respective layers as taught by Ishibashi with the system as disclosed by Jeon. The motivation would have been to provide a metallic reflective layer and a light transmission material.
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]).
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon or Jeon in view of Ishibashi, 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 or Jeon in view of Ishibashi, 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 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The arguments presented in the 5/26/2026 Remarks have been addressed in above sections of the Office Action. In particular, newly added drawings have been addressed as introducing new matter and arguments in view of prior art are specifically addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 rejection above.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights