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 4/20/2026. Claims 1 and 10-12 are amended and claims 1, 7-8, and 10-14 are currently pending.
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 1 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2023/0028958 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) in view of US Pat. No. 10,766,363 to Takamatsu et al. (hereinafter Takamatsu).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a display device (display structure with light control film, Fig. 6) for a vehicle with a window, comprising: a substrate (base layer 560, Figs. 5A-5F); a light control structure disposed on the substrate (protruding transmissive regions 530 coated with cladding 543, Figs. 5C-5F), wherein the light control structure comprises a plurality of light shielding structures (effect of Fig. 5F structure depicted analogously in Figs. 1-3; [0054-[0071] ,[0078]), and the light control structure has an effective emitting angle θ (effect of Fig. 5F structure depicted analogously in Figs. 1-3; [0054-[0071],[0078]); an anti-reflection layer (“a light absorptive core coating 541 to the (e.g. entire) surface of the cladding coating”; Figs. 5C-5F; [0078]); a protection layer (“The method further comprises applying an AR light absorptive cladding coating 542 to the (e.g. entire) surface of the light absorptive core coating”; Figs. 5C-5F”), wherein the anti-reflection layer is positioned between the plurality of light shielding structures and the protection layer (Figs. 5C-5F; [0078]); and a light emitting units emitting a light passing through the light control (Fig. 6; [0136]-[0137]).
Liu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of light emitting units disposed between the substrate and the light control structure and emitting a light passing through the light control.
Takamatsu discloses a plurality of light emitting units (light sources 65 on mount base 63 with sidewalls and surface panel 70 having apertures 71, Fig. 2, 4, 7, 8).
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 plurality of light emitting units as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Liu. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 8, Liu discloses the light control structure is a multi-layer structure (Figs. 5C-5F).
Regarding claim 10, Liu discloses a first opening is between two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, at least one of the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a first thickness in a horizontal direction, the first opening has a first width in a vertical direction, the at least one of the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a width in the vertical direction, and the width is less than the first width of the first opening ([0056]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 11, Liu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a distance exists between two adjacent ones of the plurality of light emitting units, and the distance is greater than the first width of the first opening.
Takamatsu discloses a distance exists between two adjacent ones of the plurality of light emitting units (between sources 65, Fig. 7), and the distance is greater than the first width of the first opening (several iterations of repeating cells of surface panel 70 having apertures 71, Fig. 2, 4, 7, 8).
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 geometry as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Liu. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 12, Liu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a second opening is between other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, the second opening has a second width, at least one of the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a second thickness, a first ratio is the first thickness to the first width, a second ratio is the second thickness to the second width, and the first ratio is different from the second ratio.
Takamatsu discloses a second opening is between other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, the second opening has a second width, at least one of the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures has a second thickness, a first ratio is the first thickness to the first width, a second ratio is the second thickness to the second width, and the first ratio is different from the second ratio (sidewall baffles of base 63 exhibit the claimed ratios in Fig. 8 due to curvature).
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 dimensionality as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Liu. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance for curved displays (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 13, Liu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose the substrate has a top surface, a first part of the top surface is overlapped with the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, a second part of the top surface is overlapped with the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures, and the first part is not parallel to the second part.
Takamatsu discloses the substrate has a top surface (Figs. 7-8), a first part of the top surface is overlapped with the two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures (left in Fig. 8), a second part of the top surface is overlapped with the other two adjacent ones of the plurality of light shielding structures (right in Fig. 8), and the first part is not parallel to the second part (Fig. 8).
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 dimensionality as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Liu. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance for curved displays (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Takamatsu, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US PG Pub. 2021/0036263 to Kim (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 7, Liu discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose a polarizer overlapping the light control structure, wherein the polarizer converts the light to a p-polarized light.
Kim discloses a polarizer overlapping the light control structure, wherein the polarizer converts the light to a p-polarized light (Figs. 3, 5, 7; [0079]-[0082]).
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 polarization layer as taught by Kim with the system as disclosed by Liu. The motivation would have been to selectively transmit light ([0082]).
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2023/0393312 to Kenney et al. (hereinafter Kenney) in view of US Pat. No. 10,766,363 to Takamatsu et al. (hereinafter Takamatsu).
Regarding claim 1, Kenney discloses a display device (display structure with light control film, [0002]) for a vehicle with a window, comprising: a substrate (base layer 1112, Figs. 12-13); a light control structure disposed on the substrate (protruding transmissive regions 1106, Fig. 12-13), wherein the light control structure comprises a plurality of light shielding structures (effect of Fig. 12-13 structure depicted analogously in Figs. 1 & 20; [0047]-[0051]), and the light control structure has an effective emitting angle θ (effect of Fig. 12-13 structure depicted analogously in Figs. 1 & 20; [0047]-[0051]); an anti-reflection layer (an intermediate index layer 1138, 1140, Figs. 12-13; [0063]-[0069]), wherein the anti-reflection layer is positioned between the plurality of light shielding structures and the protection layer (Figs. 12-13); and a light emitting unit emitting a light passing through the light control (“input light”; Abstract and [0004]-[0006]).
Kenney discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: a plurality of light emitting units disposed between the substrate and the light control structure and emitting a light passing through the light control.
Takamatsu discloses a plurality of light emitting units (light sources 65 on mount base 63 with sidewalls and surface panel 70 having apertures 71, Fig. 2, 4, 7, 8).
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 plurality of light emitting units as taught by Takamatsu with the system as disclosed by Kenney. The motivation would have been to prevent projection onto a window while maintaining display performance (col. 7, ll. 5-17).
Regarding claim 14, Kenney discloses a refractive index of the anti-reflection layer is between a refractive index of the protection layer and a refractive index of the plurality of light shielding structures (“a plurality of intermediate index layers, wherein each intermediate index layer is disposed between each low index layer and an adjacent absorptive region, wherein each intermediate index layer has a fourth refractive index greater than the second refractive index of each low index layer”, Figs. 12-13; [0006]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights