DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 filed July 15th, 2026, are pending in the current 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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 have been considered but are not persuasive as they do not address the teachings of a separate embodiment of Kusama et al. (US2016/0033692) where ¶321 states: “as illustrated in FIG. 7(a), in regard to the bent louver structure, it is preferable that widths (S1, S2) of the high-refractive index plate-shaped regions 12 and the low-refractive index plate-shaped regions 14, which have different refractive indices, are respectively adjusted to values within the range of 0.1 to 15 μm.” Kusama et al. (US2016/0018571) also teaches the same limitation in ¶305 which states “in regard to the louver structure, it is more preferable that each of the widths of the plate-shaped regions having different refractive indices is adjusted to a value within the range of 0.5 to 10 μm, and even more preferably to a value within the range of 1 to 5 μm.” Thus, the claimed range of 0.1 to 10 μm appears to be known in art.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al. (US2008/0144179) in view of Schmidt et al. (US2022/025277) in view of Kusama et al. (US2016/0033692)
Consider claim 1, where Mimura teaches a light-emitting display device having a viewing angle control film attached thereto, (See Mimura Figs. 20-24 and ¶37-40 where various configurations of display devices in which the microlouver (viewing angle control film) is mounted) wherein the viewing angle control film is attached on a viewer's side of the light-emitting display device, (See Mimura Figs 9a, 19-24 and ¶96 where the microlouver 20 is installed on the front side of light guide plate 23, where the viewer views the front side) the viewing angle control film having an incident light diffusion angle region, wherein when the viewing angle control film is installed vertically to a ground surface, (See Mimura Figs 11A-F and ¶64-70 where the process of forming the curable materials 53 involves installing them vertically) the incident light diffusion angle region in an up-down direction does not include a front face 0° in a horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface, and a total luminous transmittance at the front face 0° is 85% or more and 100% or less when normalized. (See Mimura Fig. 10 and ¶58-60 where the transmittance is 100% at the 0° angle. The Examiner notes that Mimura sets 100% luminance at the value measured at 0°)
Mimura provides suggestion that the incident light diffusion angle region in an up-down direction does not include a front face 0° in a horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface, and a total luminous transmittance at the front face 0° is 85% or more and 100% or less. However, in the analogous field of light control films mounted over displays Schmidt more explicitly teaches that the incident light diffusion angle region in an up-down direction does not include a front face 0° in a horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface, and a total luminous transmittance at the front face 0° is 85% or more and 100% or less. (See Schmidt Figs 5, 6 and ¶30-31 where the on-axis baseline luminance is 2100 Cd/m.sup.2. EX. 6 has an on-axis luminance of 1910 Cd/m.sup.2. Thus, the relative transmission (e.g. brightness) is 1910 Cd/m.sup.2 /2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100, which equals 91.0%.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control film of Mimura would be within 15% of the baseline luminance as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of falling within known ranges in the art.
Mimura teaches the optical element of this exemplary embodiment includes microlouver 1 having a periodic structure in which linear light absorbing layers 2 and linear transparent layers 3 are alternately disposed in one direction. (See Mimura Fig. 4 and ¶42) however, Mimura does not explicitly teach the viewing angle control film has a louver-shaped internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Kusama teaches the viewing angle control film has a louver-shaped internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index. (See Kusama fig. 2A and ¶315-319, 447-449 where it is preferable that the difference between the refractive index of the plate-shaped regions having a relatively high refractive index and the refractive index of the plate-shaped regions having a relatively low refractive index is adjusted to a value of 0.01 or more.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the light absorbing layers can be implemented by a difference in the refractive index between the light absorbing layer and the transparent layer as taught by Kusama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known methods of implementing light absorbing layers to yield the intended effect.
Mimura teaches high and low refractive index areas; however, Mimura does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10μm, and an interval between adjacent regions of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10 μm. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Kusama teaches wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10μm, and an interval between adjacent regions of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10 μm. (See Kusama Fig. 7a and ¶321 where as illustrated in FIG. 7(a), in regard to the bent louver structure, it is preferable that widths (S1, S2) of the high-refractive index plate-shaped regions 12 and the low-refractive index plate-shaped regions 14, which have different refractive indices, are respectively adjusted to values within the range of 0.1 to 15 μm.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the intervals of Mimura to reflect the known ranges in the art as taught by Kusama. One of ordinary skill in art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known ranges in the art to yield predictable results.
Consider claim 2, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein a haze value at the front face 0° is 0% or more and 40% or less. (See Schmidt Figs 5, 6 and ¶30-31 where the on-axis baseline luminance is 2100 Cd/m.sup.2. EX. 6 has an on-axis luminance of 1910 Cd/m.sup.2. Thus, the relative transmission (e.g. brightness) is 1910 Cd/m.sup.2 /2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100, which equals 91.0%. Thus, the haze at the front is ~9%) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control film of Mimura would be within 15% of the baseline luminance as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of falling within known ranges in the art.
Consider claim 4, where Mimura, in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the viewing angle control film has a thickness of 50 μm or more and 450 μm or less. (See Mimura Figs. 11A-F and ¶64-65 where a thick film having a thickness of 100 to 200 .mu.m. is used to form the slits)
Consider claim 5, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein, provided that L0 represents a luminance measured when the viewing angle control film is not present between a given light source and a luminance measuring device and L1 represents a luminance measured when the viewing angle control film is present between the light source and the luminance measuring device, a luminance change rate (%) represented by Formula (1) below is: 85% or more at the front face 0° of the viewing angle control film; and 95% or less at −10° (a positive angle is defined in a direction of rotation in which a traveling direction side in a carrying direction when manufacturing the viewing angle control film approaches the light source) from a central angle of the incident light diffusion angle region of the viewing angle control film; wherein:
Luminance change rate (%)=(L1/L0)×100 (See Schmidt Figs 5, 6 and ¶30-31 where the on-axis baseline luminance is 2100 Cd/m.sup.2. EX. 6 has an on-axis luminance of 1910 Cd/m.sup.2. Thus, the relative transmission (e.g. brightness) is 1910 Cd/m.sup.2 /2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100, which equals 91.0%. At the -10 degree angle the value is ~1750 Cd/m.sup.2 and 1750 Cd/m.sup.2/2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100 equals 83.3% which is less than the claimed 95%) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control film of Mimura would be within 15% of the baseline luminance as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of falling within known ranges in the art.
Consider claim 6, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 1, wherein the louver-shaped internal structure is provided so that a longitudinal direction of the louver-shaped internal structure extends horizontally when the viewing angle control film is installed vertically to the ground surface. (See Mimura’s abstract where the optical element is a microlouver. See Mimura Figs 11A-F and ¶64-70 where the process of forming the curable materials 53 involves installing them vertically)
Consider claim 7, where Mimura teaches a light-emitting display device having a viewing angle control film attached thereto, (See Mimura Figs. 20-24 and ¶37-40 where various configurations of display devices in which the microlouver (viewing angle control film) is mounted) wherein the viewing angle control film is attached on a viewer's side of the light-emitting display device, (See Mimura Figs 9a, 19-24 and ¶96 where the microlouver 20 is installed on the front side of light guide plate 23, where the viewer views the front side) the viewing angle control film having an incident light diffusion angle region, wherein when the viewing angle control film is installed vertically to a ground surface, (See Mimura Figs 11A-F and ¶64-70 where the process of forming the curable materials 53 involves installing them vertically) the incident light diffusion angle region in an up-down direction does not include a front face 0° in a horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface, and a total luminous transmittance at the front face 0° is 85% or more and 100% or less when normalized. (See Mimura Fig. 10 and ¶58-60 where the transmittance is 100% at the 0° angle. The Examiner notes that Mimura sets 100% luminance at the value measured at 0°)
Mimura provides suggestion that the incident light diffusion angle region in an up-down direction does not include a front face 0° in a horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface, and a total luminous transmittance at the front face 0° is 85% or more and 100% or less. However, in the analogous field of light control films mounted over displays Schmidt more explicitly teaches that the incident light diffusion angle region in an up-down direction does not include a front face 0° in a horizontal direction with respect to the ground surface, and a total luminous transmittance at the front face 0° is 85% or more and 100% or less. (See Schmidt Figs 5, 6 and ¶30-31 where the on-axis baseline luminance is 2100 Cd/m.sup.2. EX. 6 has an on-axis luminance of 1910 Cd/m.sup.2. Thus, the relative transmission (e.g. brightness) is 1910 Cd/m.sup.2 /2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100, which equals 91.0%.) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control film of Mimura would be within 15% of the baseline luminance as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of falling within known ranges in the art.
Mimura teaches the optical element of this exemplary embodiment includes microlouver 1 having a periodic structure in which linear light absorbing layers 2 and linear transparent layers 3 are alternately disposed in one direction. (See Mimura Fig. 4 and ¶42) however, Mimura does not explicitly teach the viewing angle control film has a louver-shaped internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index, wherein the difference between the relatively high refractive index and the relatively low refractive index is 0.01 to 0.3. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Kusama teaches the viewing angle control film has a louver-shaped internal structure comprising a plurality of regions having a relatively high refractive index in a region having a relatively low refractive index wherein the difference between the relatively high refractive index and the relatively low refractive index is 0.01 to 0.3. (See Kusama fig. 2A and ¶315-319, 447-449 where it is preferable that the difference between the refractive index of the plate-shaped regions having a relatively high refractive index and the refractive index of the plate-shaped regions having a relatively low refractive index is adjusted to a value of 0.01 or more and not to exceed 0.3.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the light absorbing layers can be implemented by a difference in the refractive index between the light absorbing layer and the transparent layer as taught by Kusama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known methods of implementing light absorbing layers to yield the intended effect.
Mimura teaches high and low refractive index areas, however Mimura does not explicitly teach wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10μm, and an interval between adjacent regions of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10 μm. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Kusama teaches wherein a thickness of each of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10μm, and an interval between adjacent regions of the plurality of regions having the relatively high refractive index is 0.1 to 10 μm. (See Kusama Fig. 7a and ¶321 where as illustrated in FIG. 7(a), in regard to the bent louver structure, it is preferable that widths (S1, S2) of the high-refractive index plate-shaped regions 12 and the low-refractive index plate-shaped regions 14, which have different refractive indices, are respectively adjusted to values within the range of 0.1 to 15 μm.) Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the intervals of Mimura to reflect the known ranges in the art as taught by Kusama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of using known ranges in the art to yield predictable results.
Consider claim 8, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 7, wherein a haze value at the front face 0° is 0% or more and 40% or less. (See Schmidt Figs 5, 6 and ¶30-31 where the on-axis baseline luminance is 2100 Cd/m.sup.2. EX. 6 has an on-axis luminance of 1910 Cd/m.sup.2. Thus, the relative transmission (e.g. brightness) is 1910 Cd/m.sup.2 /2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100, which equals 91.0%. Thus, the haze at the front is ~9%) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control film of Mimura would be within 15% of the baseline luminance as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of falling within known ranges in the art.
Consider claim 10, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 7, wherein the viewing angle control film has a thickness of 50 μm or more and 450 μm or less. (See Mimura Figs. 11A-F and ¶64-65 where a thick film having a thickness of 100 to 200 .mu.m. is used to form the slits)
Consider claim 11, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 7, wherein, provided that L0 represents a luminance measured when the viewing angle control film is not present between a given light source and a luminance measuring device and L1 represents a luminance measured when the viewing angle control film is present between the light source and the luminance measuring device, a luminance change rate (%) represented by Formula (1) below is: 85% or more at the front face 0° of the viewing angle control film; and 95% or less at −10° (a positive angle is defined in a direction of rotation in which a traveling direction side in a carrying direction when manufacturing the viewing angle control film approaches the light source) from a central angle of the incident light diffusion angle region of the viewing angle control film; wherein:
Luminance change rate (%)=(L1/L0)×100 (See Schmidt Figs 5, 6 and ¶30-31 where the on-axis baseline luminance is 2100 Cd/m.sup.2. EX. 6 has an on-axis luminance of 1910 Cd/m.sup.2. Thus, the relative transmission (e.g. brightness) is 1910 Cd/m.sup.2 /2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100, which equals 91.0%. At the -10 degree angle the value is ~1750 Cd/m.sup.2 and 1750 Cd/m.sup.2/2100 Cd/m.sup.2 multiplied by 100 equals 83.3% which is less than the claimed 95%) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the light control film of Mimura would be within 15% of the baseline luminance as taught by Schmidt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the modification for the advantage of/ benefit of falling within known ranges in the art.
Consider claim 12, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches the light-emitting display device according to claim 7, wherein the louver-shaped internal structure is provided so that a longitudinal direction of the louver-shaped internal structure extends horizontally when the viewing angle control film is installed vertically to the ground surface. (See Mimura’s abstract where the optical element is a microlouver. See Mimura Figs 11A-F and ¶64-70 where the process of forming the curable materials 53 involves installing them vertically)
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama as applied to claim 1, in further view of Fukushima et al (KR20210112232)
Consider claim 3, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches optical combs (see light absorption materials 24), however Mimura does not explicitly teach the viewing angle control film according to claim 1, wherein a sum of image clarity values of 0.125 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm optical combs measured in accordance with JIS K7374: 2007 is 350 or more. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Fukushima teaches wherein a sum of image clarity values of 0.125 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm optical combs measured in accordance with JIS K7374: 2007 is 350 or more. (See Fukushima section 1-1 where the total value of the image sharpness of the optical comb of 0.125 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm measured based on JISK7374:2007 of the adhesive layer 11 in this embodiment is 400 or less.) Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill im the art that the optical combs disclosed in Mimura and Schmidt would be in the preferable ranges known to those of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to stay within the preferable ranges to yield predictable results.
Consider claim 9, where Mimura in view of Schmidt in view of Kusama teaches optical combs (see light absorption materials 24), however Mimura does not explicitly teach the viewing angle control film according to claim 7, wherein a sum of image clarity values of 0.125 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm optical combs measured in accordance with JIS K7374: 2007 is 350 or more. However, in an analogous field of endeavor Fukushima teaches wherein a sum of image clarity values of 0.125 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm optical combs measured in accordance with JIS K7374: 2007 is 350 or more. (See Fukushima section 1-1 where the total value of the image sharpness of the optical comb of 0.125 mm, 0.25 mm, 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 2.0 mm measured based on JISK7374:2007 of the adhesive layer 11 in this embodiment is 400 or less.) Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill im the art that the optical combs disclosed in Mimura and Schmidt would be in the preferable ranges known to those of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to stay within the preferable ranges to yield predictable results.
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 WILLIAM LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1809. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6:30pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
WILLIAM LU
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/WILLIAM LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights