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 .
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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 4, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed November 4, 2025. Claims 3, 4, 10-13, 17, and 22 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 14-16, 18-21, and 23 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. In line 13 of newly amended claim 1, the limitation “where in the display system of claim 1” should be deleted in order to correct what appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
Namely, applicant argues that the examiner has not provided reasoning to adequately support a prima facie case obviousness (see e.g. page 7, last paragraph of Remarks of 11/4/25).
However, as cited below, Quach et al. discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, except “wherein the light-absorbing substrate is a window film applied to a window or the light absorbing substrate comprises a pair of eyeglass lenses worn by the unintended viewer; wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660; wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm” However, Hu et al. discloses using a light-absorbing layer (denoted window film) that is used to absorb light that may be applied to a window (see e.g. paragraph [0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying such a light-absorbing layer as disclosed by Quach et al. and Hu et al. to a window would provide a privacy function where the window would normally give access to an area that includes a projected image with sensitive information. This would provide a privacy feature to prevent unwanted external viewing of the projected images. Yamamoto et al. further discloses wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660 (see e.g. paragraph [0097] and note that a wavelength of 660 nm is cited). It is known that selecting a particular wavelength that contributes to a desired color rendering would be considered with ordinary skill in the art and would have predictable results. Finally, Barrett et al. discloses wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM of 10nm or less (see e.g. page 47, line 13-22), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. Providing the narrow band absorbers with a small FWHM would allow the film to absorb at only the desired wavelength band. This would allow for some light to pass through the window without the image being seen by an unintended viewer.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 16.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 5-9, 14-16, 18-21, and 23 are rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Namely, all of the limitations of claim 5, i.e. “wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm” are already required by claim 1, on which claim 5 depends. Similarly, all of the limitations of claim 19, i.e. “wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660” are required by claim 16, on which claim 19 depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 2, 5, 8, 16, 18, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach et al. (US 2009/0027630 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2010/0178449 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2006/0158725 A1) and further in view of Barrett et al. (WO 2019/099554 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Quach et al. discloses a display system for displaying an image, the display system comprising (see e.g. Figure 2):
a. a projector 210 (see e.g. paragraph [0019]) that emits light toward a viewing surface at three discrete wavelength ranges in the visible spectrum to create an image (see e.g. paragraph [0020]);
b. a viewing surface 206 that allows viewing of the image by both an intended viewer and an unintended viewer (see e.g. paragraph [0019]); and
c. a light-absorbing substrate 108, disposed between the viewing surface and the unintended viewer, incorporating one or more narrow-band absorbers that selectively absorb light within the three discrete wavelength ranges, thus reducing or eliminating the image perceived by the unintended viewer (see e.g. paragraph [0021]).
Quach et al. fails to disclose
wherein the light-absorbing substrate is a window film applied to a window or the light absorbing substrate comprises a pair of eyeglass lenses worn by the unintended viewer;
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660;
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Hu et al. discloses using a light-absorbing layer (denoted window film) that is used to absorb light that may be applied to a window (see e.g. paragraph [0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying such a light-absorbing layer as disclosed by Quach et al. and Hu et al. to a window would provide a privacy function where the window would normally give access to an area that includes a projected image with sensitive information.
Give the teachings of Hu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Quach et al. with the light-absorbing substrate is in the form of a window film, and a window.
Doing so would provide a privacy feature to prevent unwanted external viewing of the projected images.
Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., fails to disclose
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660;
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Yamamoto et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0097]):
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660 (see e.g. paragraph [0097] and note that a wavelength of 660 nm is cited). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Yamamoto et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., with wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660.
Selecting a particular wavelength that contributes to a desired color rendering would be considered with ordinary skill in the art.
Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., fails to disclose
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Barrett et al. discloses (see e.g. page 47, line 13-22):
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM of 10nm or less, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., with wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
Doing so would provide a very narrow/notch filter for absorbing the light. Providing the narrow band absorbers with a small FWHM would allow the film to absorb at only the desired wavelength band. This would allow for some light to pass through the window without the image being seen by an unintended viewer.
In regard to claim 2, Quach et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 515nm, and 642nm.
However, Quach et al. does disclose using blue, green, and red (see e.g. paragraph [0020]) which are close to the applicant’s claimed values. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using a projector, wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 515nm, and 642nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al. with wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 515nm, and 642nm.
Doing so would provide three wavelengths which can be combined to produce a full color image, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 5, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Barrett et al. discloses (see e.g. page 47, line 13-22):
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM of 10nm or less, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., with wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
Doing so would provide a very narrow/notch filter for absorbing the light.
In regard to claim 8, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments.
However, Barrett et al. discloses (see e.g. page 47, line 13-22):
wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments.
Given the teachings of Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., with wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments.
Doing so would provide a means for achieving a desired absorption band.
In regard to claim 16, Quach et al. discloses a method of preventing unintended viewing of an image on a viewing surface 206, the image formed from light from a projector 210 emitted at three discrete wavelength ranges (see e.g. paragraph [0020]), the method comprising placing a light-absorbing substrate 108 between the viewing surface 206 and the unintended viewer, that incorporates one or more narrow-band absorbers that selectively absorb light within the three discrete wavelength ranges, thus reducing or eliminating the image perceived by the unintended viewer.
Quach et al. fails to disclose
the light-absorbing substrate is in the form of a window film, and
wherein the light-absorbing substrate is a window film applied to a window or the light absorbing substrate comprises a pair of eyeglass lenses worn by the unintended viewer.
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660;
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Hu et al. discloses using a light-absorbing layer (denoted window film) that is used to absorb light that may be applied to a window (see e.g. paragraph [0004]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying such a light-absorbing layer as disclosed by Quach et al. and Hu et al. to a window would provide a privacy function where the window would normally give access to an area that includes a projected image with sensitive information.
Give the teachings of Hu et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Quach et al. with the light-absorbing substrate is in the form of a window film, and a window.
Doing so would provide a privacy feature to prevent unwanted external viewing of the projected images.
Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., fails to disclose
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660;
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Yamamoto et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0097]):
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660 (see e.g. paragraph [0097] and note that a wavelength of 660 nm is cited). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Yamamoto et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., with wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660.
Selecting a particular wavelength that contributes to a desired color rendering would be considered with ordinary skill in the art.
Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., fails to disclose
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Barrett et al. discloses (see e.g. page 47, line 13-22):
wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM of 10nm or less, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., with wherein the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
Doing so would provide a very narrow/notch filter for absorbing the light. Providing the narrow band absorbers with a small FWHM would allow the film to absorb at only the desired wavelength band. This would allow for some light to pass through the window without the image being seen by an unintended viewer.
In regard to claim 18, Quach et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 18 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 550nm, and 642nm.
However, Quach et al. does disclose using blue, green, and red (see e.g. paragraph [0020]) which are close to the applicant’s claimed values. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize using a projector, wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 550nm, and 642nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al. with wherein the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 550nm, and 642nm.
Doing so would provide three wavelengths which can be combined to produce a full color image, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 19, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660.
However, Yamamoto et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0097]):
wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660.
Given the teachings of Yamamoto et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., with wherein one of the discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector includes light having a wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660.
Doing so would provide a red light that may be used in forming a full color image.
In regard to claim 21, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments.
However, Barrett et al. discloses (see e.g. page 47, line 13-22):
wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments.
Given the teachings of Barrett et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. and Yamamoto et al., with wherein the narrow-band absorbers are selected from dyes and pigments.
Doing so would provide a means for achieving a desired absorption band.
Claims 6, 7, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach et al. (US 2009/0027630 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2010/0178449 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2006/0158725 A1) in view of Barrett et al. (WO 2019/099554 A1) and further in view of Kurtz et al. (US 2018/0341119 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Kurtz et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0130]):
wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.05nm to about 1.5 nm, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Kurtz et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
Doing so would give a wavelength band that is narrow due to the projector light source incorporating lasers.
In regard to claim 7, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector, a DPSS laser- based projector, an LED projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, or a wave guide projector.
However, Kurtz et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0130]):
wherein the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector, a DPSS laser- based projector, an LED projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, or a wave guide projector.
Given the teachings of Kurtz et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector, a DPSS laser- based projector, an LED projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, or a wave guide projector.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent projector that may be used to achieve very narrow wavelength bands.
In regard to claim 20, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector, a DPSS laser- based projector, an LED projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, or a wave guide projector.
However, Kurtz et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0130]):
wherein the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector, a DPSS laser- based projector, an LED projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, or a wave guide projector.
Given the teachings of Kurtz et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein the projector is selected from a laser diode-based projector, a DPSS laser- based projector, an LED projector, a hybrid laser-LED projector, or a wave guide projector.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent projector that may be used to achieve very narrow wavelength bands.
In regard to claim 23, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
However, Kurtz et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0130]):
wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.05nm to about 1.5 nm, which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Kurtz et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein at least one of the three wavelength ranges of light emitted by the projector exhibits a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm.
Doing so would give a wavelength band that is narrow due to the projector light source incorporating lasers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach et al. (US 2009/0027630 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2010/0178449 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2006/0158725 A1) in view of Barrett et al. (WO 2019/099554 A1) and further in view of Sawaki et al. (US 2013/0002998 A1).
In regard to claim 9, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye.
However, Sawaki et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0092]):
wherein at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye.
Given the teachings of Sawaki et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein at least one of the narrow-band absorbers is a polymethine dye. Doing so would provide a commonly used dye in the fabrication of color filter/color absorbing layers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach et al. (US 2009/0027630 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2010/0178449 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2006/0158725 A1) in view of Barrett et al. (WO 2019/099554 A1) and further in view of Shouhi et al. (US 2021/0025226 A1).
In regard to claim 14, Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the light absorbing substrate further comprises a UV absorber.
However, Shouhi et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0039]):
wherein the light absorbing substrate further comprises a UV absorber.
Given the teachings of Shouhi et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein the light absorbing substrate further comprises a UV absorber.
Doing so would prevent unwanted detrimental effects or poor performance due to incident UV light.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quach et al. (US 2009/0027630 A1) in view of Hu et al. (US 2010/0178449 A1) in view of Yamamoto et al. (US 2006/0158725 A1) in view of Barrett et al. (WO 2019/099554 A1) and further in view of Lahti (US 2016/0217751 A1).
In regard to claim 15¸ Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the light-absorbing substrate further comprises a near infrared absorber.
However, Lahti discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0068]):
wherein the light-absorbing substrate further comprises a near infrared absorber.
Given the teachings of Lahti, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al., Yamamoto et al. and Barrett et al., with wherein the light-absorbing substrate further comprises a near infrared absorber.
Doing so would prevent unwanted transmission of IR light.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871