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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/072026 has been entered. Claims 1-18 and 32 remain pending in the Application. Claims 1 and 32 have been amended and claims 19-27, 29-31 and 33- 34 have been canceled. Claim 28 was previously withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 201.04, 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application a National Stage entry of PCT/IB2021/059575 with international filing date of 10/18/2021 and that claims priority from Provisional Application 63094681 , filed 10/21/2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. (hereafter Schmidt, of record, see IDS dated 06/02/2023) WO2020026139 A1, where equivalent US 20210333624 A1(of record) is referenced for convenience, in view of Gaides et al. (hereafter Gaides) US 20070160811 A1.
In regard to independent claim 1, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) a light control film (100, 200, 300 light control film, abstract, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62, 117,119]) comprising:
a light input surface and a light output surface opposite the light input surface (light input 110 and output surface 120 opposite the light input surface 120, of 100, and equivalents for 200, 300, see paragraphs [15-20, 32-40], Figs. 1-3);
alternating transmissive regions (alternating transmissive regions 130,230,330, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62] made of resin compositions for melt extrusion, with refractive index of 1.59, etc.) and absorptive regions disposed between the light input surface and the light output surface (as core 141 (341) absorptive material and absorptive regions 140 disposed between the light output surface 120 and a light input surface 110, where 140 (340) includes core 141 (341), paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62] Figs. 1-3), wherein each absorptive region has an aspect ratio of at least 30 (i.e. core 141 and absorptive in 140 region, having width WA and having HA/WA aspect ratio in the above range e.g. paragraphs [19,22, 91], cl. 16]), and wherein each transmissive region has a first refractive index (i.e. as 130,230,330 as made of resin compositions for melt extrusion, with refractive index of 1.59, 1.5 etc. paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 46, 52-62,101-104]); and
a plurality of low index layers (as cladding layers 142,342, including lens concentration of absorbing particles than core layer and non-light absorbing particles, layer(s) of acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, and lower than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]), wherein each low index layer is disposed between each transmissive region and an adjacent absorptive region (e.g. as each 142,342 is between transmissive region 130,330 and absorptive material core 141,341 of 140,340, as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1-3, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]), and
wherein each low index layer has a second refractive index less than the first refractive index of each transmissive region (as cladding layer 142,342, including less concentration of absorbing particles than core layer and non-light absorbing particles/material layer(s) of acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, and lower than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]).
But Schmidt does not disclose that each low index layer provided on each side wall of a transmissive region is wedge-shaped with a thickness that is greater adjacent the light output surface than adjacent the light input surface (however, Schmidt teaches that absorptive regions 140 with low index cladding 142,342 may have small wall angle with line 160 that is perpendicular to output surface 120, leaving the transmissive regions 130,230,330 to have trapezoidal shape, allowing the total transmission and brightness of LCF to be selected for different viewing angles providing suitability for privacy films use, e.g. paragraphs [23-28, 30-31,34,104], Figs. 1-2).
However, Gaides teaches in the same field of invention of a Light-control Film (see e.g. Figs. 1-4,Title,Abstract, paragraphs [06-13, 20-28,30-31], with microstructured film article 100 of film 200 with transparent regions alternating with grooves 101a-b filled with absorbing material 250 with matched low refractive index, e.g. Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [20-31]) and further teaches that each low index layer provided on each side wall of a transmissive region is wedge-shaped with a thickness that is greater adjacent the light output surface than adjacent the light input surface (i.e. as 250 have wedge shape due to wall angle theta and being wider at output/top surface of 200, preferably amenable to producing grooves having relatively high aspect ratio (D/W) thereby providing a sharper image viewability cutoff at lower viewing angles, with selectable cutoff viewing angle for use as privacy films in different applications e.g. notebook computers, teller machines or for automotive use, e.g. paragraphs [23-28]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust and modify the already angled low index layer provided on each side wall of a transmissive region of Schmidt to have wedge-shape with greater thickness at top, output surface than bottom, input surface according to teachings of Gaides in order to preferably produce grooves having relatively high aspect ratio (D/W) providing a sharper image viewability cutoff at lower viewing angles, and with selectable cutoff viewing angle for use as privacy films in different applications e.g. notebook computers, teller machines or for automotive use, e.g. paragraphs [23-28]).
Regarding claim 2, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that a ratio between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is from about 1.01 to about 1.50 (i.e. given 1st index of 130,230,330 made of resin e.g. refractive index of 1.59, 1.5, and 2nd index of 142,342 acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, having values in the above range, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]).
Regarding claim 3, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that a ratio between the first refractive index and the second refractive index is from about 1.02 to about 1.20 (i.e. given 1st index of 130,230,330 made of resin e.g. refractive index of 1.59, 1.5, and 2nd index of 142,342 acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, having values in the above range, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]).
Regarding claim 4, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that an average thickness of each low index layer is from about 50 nm to about 950 nm (i.e. as low index 142,342 has thickness/width WA as width WAcladding in that range where width can be averaged, see paragraphs [20-22]).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that an average thickness of each low index layer is from about 150 nm to about 950 nm (i.e. as low index 142,342 has thickness/width WA as width WAcladding in that range where width can be averaged, see paragraphs [20-22]).
Regarding claim 6, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that each low index layer comprises at least one of a metal, a resin, a metal oxide, a silicon based material, an air encapsulated coating, and a fluorine based material (i.e. as low index 142,342 layers cladding includes resin(s), silica (e.g. nanosilica), and lower concentration (C2) of light absorbing material e.g. carbon black, pigment, dye, or combinations thereof including metal ions/ligands, encapsulated air in channels, fluoropolymer(s), e.g. paragraphs [55, 59-60, 65-67, 69-75, 83-84,94]).
Regarding claim 7, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that an extinction coefficient of each low index layer is from about 0 to about 0.08 (i.e. as low index 142,342 layers have extinction coefficient in the above range, see paragraphs [60,63,119]).
Regarding claim 8, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that each absorptive region has a third refractive index (as core 141 (341) absorptive material and absorptive particles, e.g. carbon black, pigments etc., paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 54-58,67-72,116-118], Figs. 1-3), but is silent that it is greater than the second refractive index (as low index cladding layers 142 can include some similar materials, e.g. absorbing particles, and non-light absorbing particles/material layer(s) of acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, and lower than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive indices of core absorptive material layer and low index cladding layers to have slightly different refractive indices, where e.g. core layer refractive index is slightly higher than the low index cladding layer in order to increase transmission and brightness of light undergoing total internal reflection between transmissive and absorptive regions and for different/higher viewing angles (see paragraphs [24,116-10]), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the third refractive index of each absorptive region is from about 1.5 to about 2.0 (i.e. given that core material index is higher than that of low index cladding layers 142 with some similar materials, e.g. absorbing particles, and compounds material layer(s) of acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, and lower than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,67-72]).
Regarding claim 10, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that an extinction coefficient of each absorptive region is from about 0.2 to about 0.5 (i.e. as core layer 141,(341) have extinction coefficient in the above range, see paragraphs [60-62]).
Regarding claim 11, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that a thickness of each absorptive region is from about 100 nm to about 1500 nm (i.e. as 141,341 have thickness/width WA as width WAcore in that range where width can be averaged, see paragraphs [20-21]).
Regarding claim 12, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the first refractive index is from about 1.20 to about 1.8 (i.e. as 130,230,330 as made of resin compositions for e.g. melt extrusion, with refractive index of 1.59, 1.5, also PET 1.63, PC 1.58, 1.6 paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 46, 52-62,101-104]).
Regarding claim 13, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that further comprising an intermediate index layer disposed between each low index layer and an adjacent absorptive region (i.e. as additional cladding layer e.g. additional cladding i.e. between core 141 and fist cladding 142 since cladding can have more than one layer, see paragraphs [14, 21, 59, 118-119], e.g. Example2), wherein each intermediate index layer has a fourth refractive index similar to the second refractive index of each low index layer (i.e. since the multiple cladding layers have different concentrations of absorbing material, their indexes are similar (as cladding layers have different concentrations of absorbing particles and same non-absorbing material layer(s) of e.g. acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, Ex2, 1.36, and lower index than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]).
But Schmidt is silent that the fourth refractive index greater than the second refractive index of each low index layer (as noted the stacked different claddings have similar refractive indices, paragraphs [14, 21, 59, 118-119], e.g. Example 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive indices of first and additional/intermediate cladding layers to have slightly different refractive indices, where e.g. additional/intermediate cladding refractive index is slightly higher than the low index cladding layer in order to increase transmission and brightness of light undergoing total internal reflection between transmissive and absorptive regions and for different/higher viewing angles (see paragraphs [24,118-120]), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that the fourth refractive index is greater than the first refractive index of each transmissive region (as cladding layers including additional/intermediate cladding layer have different concentrations of absorbing particles and same non-absorbing material layer(s) of e.g. acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, Ex2, 1.36, and lower index than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions e.g. with index of 1.59, 1.5, also e.g. PET 1.63, PC 1.58, 1.6, e.g. paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 46, 52-62,101-104]).
Regarding claim 15, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that in the fourth refractive index is from about 1.2 to about 1.8 (i.e. as additional/intermediate cladding layer have different concentrations of absorbing particles and same non-absorbing material layer(s) of e.g. acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, Ex2, 1.36, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,119, with small modification due to optimization, see claim 13 above).
Regarding claim 16, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that an extinction coefficient of each intermediate index layer is from about 0.005 to about 0.08 (as additional/intermediate cladding is similar to cladding low index 142,342 layer, and thus has extinction coefficient in the above range, see paragraphs [60,63,119]).
Regarding claim 17, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that each intermediate index layer comprises at least one of a metal, a resin, a metal oxide, a silicon based material, and a fluorine based material (i.e. as additional/intermediate cladding is similar to low index 142,342 layers cladding and thus includes resin(s), silica (e.g. nanosilica), and lower concentration (C2) of light absorbing material e.g. carbon black, pigment, dye, or combinations thereof including metal ions/ligands, encapsulated air in channels, fluoropolymer(s), e.g. paragraphs [55, 59-60, 65-67, 69-75, 83-84,94]).
Regarding claim 18, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) that each low index layer has a non- uniform thickness (i.e. given that transmissive regions 130 protrusions have small wall angle e.g. 1.5 degrees, the protrusions 130 regions are tapered, leaving the channels and microstructured film of 140 including 142 with similar (opposite) tapered form, see paragraphs [104, 110]).
In regard to independent claim 32, Schmidt teaches (see Figs. 1-6) a light control film (100, 200, 300 light control film, abstract, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62, 117,119]) comprising:
a light input surface and a light output surface opposite the light input surface (light input 110 and output surface 120 opposite the light input surface 120, of 100, and equivalents for 200, 300, see paragraphs [15-20, 32-40], Figs. 1-3);
alternating transmissive regions (alternating transmissive regions 130,230,330, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62] made of resin compositions for melt extrusion, with refractive index of 1.59, etc.) and absorptive regions disposed between the light input surface and the light output surface (as core 141 (341) absorptive material and absorptive regions 140 disposed between the light output surface 120 and a light input surface 110, where 140 (340) includes core 141 (341), paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62] Figs. 1-3), wherein each absorptive region has an aspect ratio of at least 30 (i.e. core 141 and absorptive in 140 region, having width WA and having HA/WA aspect ratio in the above range e.g. paragraphs [19,22, 91], cl. 16]), and wherein each transmissive region has a first refractive index (i.e. as 130,230,330 as made of resin compositions for melt extrusion, with refractive index of 1.59, 1.5 etc. paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 46, 52-62,101-104]); and
a plurality of low index layers (as cladding layers 142,342, including lens concentration of absorbing particles than core layer and non-light absorbing particles, layer(s) of acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, and lower than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]), wherein each low index layer is disposed between each transmissive region and an adjacent absorptive region (e.g. as each 142,342 is between transmissive region 130,330 and absorptive material core 141,341 of 140,340, as depicted in e.g. Figs. 1-3, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]), and
wherein each low index layer has a second refractive index less than the first refractive index of each transmissive region (as cladding layer 142,342, including less concentration of absorbing particles than core layer and non-light absorbing particles/material layer(s) of acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, or Ex1,Ex2, 1.47, 1.36, and lower than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]); and
a plurality of intermediate index layers(additional cladding layers, see paragraphs [14, 21, 59, 118-119], e.g. Example2), wherein each intermediate index layer is disposed between each low index layer and an adjacent absorptive region (i.e. as additional cladding layers e.g. additional cladding between core 141 and fist cladding 142 since cladding can have more than one layer, see paragraphs [14, 21, 59, 118-119], e.g. Example2),
wherein each intermediate index layer has a fourth refractive index greater than the second refractive index of each low index layer. wherein each intermediate index layer has a fourth refractive index similar to the second refractive index of each low index layer (i.e. since the multiple cladding layers have different concentrations of absorbing material, their indexes are similar (as cladding layers have different concentrations of absorbing particles and same non-absorbing material layer(s) of e.g. acrylic n=1.49, silica 1.47, Ex2, 1.36, and lower index than refractive index of resin of transmissive regions, paragraphs [15-20, 32-40, 52-62,101-104]).
But Schmidt is silent that the fourth refractive index greater than the second refractive index of each low index layer (as noted the stacked different claddings have similar refractive indices, paragraphs [14, 21, 59, 118-119], e.g. Example 2).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the refractive indices of first and additional/intermediate cladding layers to have slightly different refractive indices, where e.g. additional/intermediate cladding refractive index is slightly higher than the low index cladding layer in order to increase transmission and brightness of light undergoing total internal reflection between transmissive and absorptive regions and for different/higher viewing angles (see paragraphs [24,118-120]), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Further, Schmidt does not disclose that each low index layer provided on each side wall of a transmissive region is wedge-shaped with a thickness that is greater adjacent the light output surface than adjacent the light input surface (however, Schmidt teaches that absorptive regions 140 with low index cladding 142,342 may have small wall angle with line 160 that is perpendicular to output surface 120, leaving the transmissive regions 130,230,330 to have trapezoidal shape, allowing the total transmission and brightness of LCF to be selected for different viewing angles providing suitability for privacy films use, e.g. paragraphs [23-28, 30-31,34,104], Figs. 1-2).
However, Gaides teaches in the same field of invention of a Light-control Film (see e.g. Figs. 1-4,Title,Abstract, paragraphs [06-13, 20-28,30-31], with microstructured film article 100 of film 200 with transparent regions alternating with grooves 101a-b filled with absorbing material 250 with matched low refractive index, e.g. Figs. 1-2, paragraphs [20-31]) and further teaches that each low index layer provided on each side wall of a transmissive region is wedge-shaped with a thickness that is greater adjacent the light output surface than adjacent the light input surface (i.e. as 250 have wedge shape due to wall angle theta and being wider at output/top surface of 200, preferably amenable to producing grooves having relatively high aspect ratio (D/W) thereby providing a sharper image viewability cutoff at lower viewing angles, with selectable cutoff viewing angle for use as privacy films in different applications e.g. notebook computers, teller machines or for automotive use, e.g. paragraphs [23-28]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust and modify the already angled low index layer provided on each side wall of a transmissive region of Schmidt to have wedge-shape with greater thickness at top, output surface than bottom, input surface according to teachings of Gaides in order to preferably produce grooves having relatively high aspect ratio (D/W) providing a sharper image viewability cutoff at lower viewing angles, and with selectable cutoff viewing angle for use as privacy films in different applications e.g. notebook computers, teller machines or for automotive use, e.g. paragraphs [23-28]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 01/07/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 32 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 MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872