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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed April 20, 2026. Claims 3-5, 10-13, 17, 19, and 22 have been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 14-16, 18, 20, 21, and 23 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-8 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 Quach references fails to disclose “wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer”. However, as set forth below, Yamamoto et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 2): wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen 110 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0068] and note reflector 111 is considered opaque); and wherein the image (i.e. reflects laser beam light 142) is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer (see e.g. paragraph [0068]). Applicant further argues that the Quach et al. references teaches away from applicant’s solution of the present application. However, it is noted that one of ordinary skill would recognize that projectors using opaque/reflective screens are an alternate mode of operation of a projection device and that substitution of such an operational mode into the device of Quach et al. would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to maintain privacy controls of the projected image in alternate configurations.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 16.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 6-9, 14-16, 18, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 16 ends with “; and” instead of “.”. This appears to be a typographical error. For examination purposes, it is presumed “; and” should be “.”.
Further, in lines 4-5 of the Remarks, “the unintended viewer” should be replaced with “an unintended viewer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 14, 15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the limitations, “a viewing surface that allows viewing of the image by both an intended and an unintended viewer” and “reducing or eliminating the image perceived by the unintended viewer” appear to be in conflict. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the image would be perceived in the absence of the claimed window film.
Further, regarding claim 1, the limitation, “wavelength selected from one or more of 635, 638, 650, or 660” does not include units. For examination purposes, it is presumed the values have units of nanometers.
In regard to claim 2, the limitation, “the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 515nm, and 642 nm” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, claim 1 requires one of the three discrete wavelength of 635, 638, 650 or 660”, which is in conflict with claim 2. For examination purposes it is presumed, any of 642, 635, 638, or 660 satisfies the claim language.
Claims 2, 6-9, 14, and 15 depend from claim 1.
In regard to claim 18, the limitation, “where the three discrete wavelength ranges emitted by the projector include light of 445nm, 550nm, and 642 nm” are in conflict with the claimed ranges of claim 16, including 445, 515, and 642 nm. For examination purposes, it is presumed either 550nm or 515nm satisfies the claim.
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, 8, 16, 18, 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 200 for displaying an image, the display system 200 comprising (see e.g. Figures 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] where it is noted that the projector emits in narrow bands of red, green, and blue lights);
b. a viewing surface 206 that allows viewing of the image by both an intended viewer 104 and an unintended viewer 102 (see e.g. paragraph [0019]); and
c. a light-absorbing substrate 108, disposed between the viewing surface and the unintended viewer 102, 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 viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and
wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer;
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, Quach et al. does disclose a wavelength range of equal to or less than 625-740nm or narrower (see e.g. paragraph [0018]). It is noted that applicant’s values of 635, 638, 650, or 660 fail within the claimed range. Further, 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).
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 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 the wavelength of the light used in the projector would allow for a desired color rendering of the device.
Quach et al. fails to disclose
wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and
wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer;
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 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 the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and
wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer;
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. Figure 2):
wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen 110 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0068] and note reflector 111 is considered opaque); and
wherein the image (i.e. reflects laser beam light 142) is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer (see e.g. paragraph [0068]).
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 device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. with wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer.
Using a reflective/opaque projection screen would be an alternative application of the privacy device, as is known 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 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 102, 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 102 (see e.g. paragraph [0021]).
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;
wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and
wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer.
However, Quach et al. does disclose a wavelength range of equal to or less than 625-740nm or narrower (see e.g. paragraph [0018]). It is noted that applicant’s values of 635, 638, 650, or 660 fail within the claimed range. Further, 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).
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 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 the wavelength of the light used in the projector would allow for a desired color rendering of the device.
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 the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm;
wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and
wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer.
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 the one or more narrow band absorbers exhibit a FWHM from about 0.5nm to about 100nm;
wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and
wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer.
However, Yamamoto et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 2):
wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen 110 (see e.g. Figure 2 and paragraph [0068] and note reflector 111 is considered opaque); and
wherein the image (i.e. reflects laser beam light 142) is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer (see e.g. paragraph [0068]).
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 device of Quach et al., in view of Hu et al. with wherein the viewing surface is an opaque projector screen; and wherein the image is reflected off the viewing surface in the direction of the intended viewer.
Using a reflective/opaque projection screen would be an alternative application of the privacy device, as is known 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 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights