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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 57 is included with the non-elected invention, and is considered withdrawn. It appears to have been inadvertently omitted due to Applicant’s initial misnumbering of Claims 55, 55, and 56 (where number 55 was used to identify two separate claims), but in view of Claim 57’s dependence from withdrawn Claim 20, its inclusion in the withdrawn claims would have been readily understood. Applicant’s lack of arguments or discussion relating to Claim 57 further support its inclusion among the withdrawn claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 26, 2025, have been considered. The objection to the Abstract is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the same.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claimed distance between the first and second sheets (e.g., pages 17–19 of the Reply) are not persuasive with respect to Claims 1–4; but are persuasive with respect to Claims 5 and 6. In particular, this limitation is recited in the alternative in Claim 1, and as such, is not specifically required where the other alternative limitation is met. However, Claim 5 (and Claim 6 which depends therefrom) does require the limitation, and Applicant’s arguments in that regard are persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 2 are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the optical coupling medium of Huang (US 4,970,381) would not be suitable for use in the device of Zhang (US 5,164,856) (pages 19–20 of the Reply). While Huang appears to disclose the use of an index matching fluid between substrates (col. 7, lines 19–29), and Huang appears to teach its use in a system where the substrates are fixed, nothing in Huang appears to teach that such fixed positioning of the substrates and associated components is required. That is, it still appears that the system of Zhang may benefit from such index matching fluid between substrates. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in this regard.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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, 8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,164,856 to Zhang et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses (e.g., Figs. 1–8 and their corresponding descriptions) a light modification unit comprising: two or more sheets (e.g., panes 34/46), including a first sheet 34 comprising a first high transmissivity set of regions (34, segment B), and at least one additional set of regions comprising a first low transmissivity set of regions (34, segment A), wherein over at least a range of wavelengths between 350-1400 nm including at a first wavelength the transmissivity of the first high transmissivity set of regions is higher than the transmissivity of the first low transmissivity set of regions (e.g., in view of the orthogonally oriented linear polarization within regions 34 segments A/B, certain polarizations of light will satisfy this limitation, being more transmissive when oriented closer to the polarization transmission axis, and less transmissive when oriented closer to orthogonal to the polarization transmission axis), and a second sheet 46 comprising a second high transmissivity set of regions (46, segment B), and at least one additional set of regions comprising a second low transmissivity set of regions (46, segment A), wherein at least at the first wavelength the transmissivity of the second high transmissivity set of regions is higher than the transmissivity of the second low transmissivity set of regions (e.g., in view of the orthogonally oriented linear polarization within regions 46 segments A/B, certain polarizations of light will satisfy this limitation, being more transmissive when oriented closer to the polarization transmission axis, and less transmissive when oriented closer to orthogonal to the polarization transmission axis), the second sheet positioned substantially parallel to the first sheet (col. 3, lines 33–43; Figs. 1–8), an actuation mechanism (pane moving means 25; col. 6, line 53 to col. 7, line 3) capable of translating at least the second sheet relative to the first sheet, between at least a first position, in which the first high transmissivity set of regions are substantially aligned with the second high transmissivity set of regions such that there is a substantial overlap between them (e.g., Fig. 5; also Figs. 5–8 show the translation movement), and a second position, in which the alignment between the first high transmissivity set of regions and the second high transmissivity set of regions is reduced such that the overlap between the first and the second high transmissivity sets of regions is reduced compared to the first position (e.g., Fig. 7; also Figs. 5–8 show the translation movement).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein an optical coupling material fills at least some of the space between at least one portion of the first and the second sheet, or at least in the first position at least one portion of the surface of the second sheet is separated from the surface of the first sheet by an arithmetic average distance of less than 400 nm, such that an optical connection is achieved between at least portions of the first and the second sheet in at least the first position.
However, Zhang teaches that “[t]he second sheet is substantially identical to the first sheet and positioned in an adjacent, substantially parallel plane” (col. 3, lines 33–35), reasonably suggesting a desired minimum distance between the sheets, where the term “adjacent” is generally understood to mean abutting, very near, or touching, such that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing would reasonably understand from Zhang that the two sheets should be as close as possible, including less than 400nm gap therebetween, or at least would be motivated to consider making such a configuration based on the teachings of Zhang. (Note that the limitation “an optical coupling material fills at least some of the space between at least one portion of the first and the second sheet” is required only in the alternative, so where Zhang suggests the alternative average distance between sheets, this limitation is met).
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein each sheet comprises two sets of regions (e.g., Fig. 1; alternating series of segments A and B along translation direction Y, col. 3, lines 24–32), wherein at least the first and the second high transmissivity sets of regions are substantially transparent to light in the 400-700 nm range, wherein at least the first and the second low transmissivity sets of regions are substantially opaque to light in the 400-700 nm range (e.g., in view of the orthogonally oriented linear polarization within regions 46 segments A/B, certain polarizations of light will satisfy this limitation, being more transmissive when oriented closer to the polarization transmission axis, and less transmissive when oriented closer to orthogonal to the polarization transmission axis).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the reflectivity of the first and the second low transmissivity sets of regions generally being non-zero in the range between 400 and 700 nm.
However, there are generally two types of linear polarizers, such as the ones taught by Zhang, either absorptive or reflective. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Zhang to select reflective polarizers, as between the two main types of linear polarizers, where such a modification would yield predictable results without undue experimentation (e.g., MPEP §§ 2143–2144).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang would have rendered obvious wherein the transmissivity of the first high transmissivity set of regions is higher than the transmissivity of the first low transmissivity set of regions at a normal angle of incidence, and the transmissivity of the second high transmissivity set of regions is higher than the transmissivity of the second low transmissivity set of regions at a normal angle of incidence (at least in view of the polarizing nature of the sheets 34/46).
Claims 2–4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,970,381 to Huang et al.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang does not explicitly disclose wherein an optical coupling material fills at least some of the space between at least one portion of the first and the second sheet, such that in at least the first position an optical connection is achieved between at least portions of the first and the second sheet, irrespective of the surface separation between the first and the second sheet.
Huang teaches that in an optical device with two substrates, including an index matched fluid in the space between the two substrates ameliorates problems of unwanted reflection/refraction due to the index of refraction of air which would otherwise be present between the substrates (e.g., col. 7, lines 19–29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Zhang to include an optical coupling material filling at least some of the space between at least one portion of the first and the second sheet, such that in at least the first position an optical connection is achieved between at least portions of the first and the second sheet, irrespective of the surface separation between the first and the second sheet, as suggested by the teachings of Huang, in order to ameliorate problems arising when air having a different refractive index than the substrates is between the substrates.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Huang would have rendered obvious wherein an optical coupling material fills substantially all space between at least the first and the second sheet, such that in at least the first position an optical connection is achieved between at least the first and the second sheet (col. 7, lines 19–29 of Huang, discussed above with respect to Claim 2).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Huang would have rendered obvious wherein the optical coupling material is an optical coupling liquid, optical coupling colloid, elastomer, rubber, viscoelastic material, soft malleable transparent putty, or other suchlike material (e.g., col. 7, lines 19–29 of Huang, index-matching “fluid”).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Huang would have rendered obvious wherein the refractive index difference between the high transmissivity sheet material and the optically connecting material is less than 0.1 over 480-630 nm range, at least at room temperature (where Huang teaches an index-matching fluid, and based on that teaching, it would have been obvious to match the indices as close as possible, theoretically exactly matching, or a 0.0 difference, reasonably suggesting to one of skill in the art “less than 0.1” difference in indices, and it further would have been obvious to center the index matching over the visible range in an optical system where the function of the device involves visible light).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 9–18 are 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871