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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-12 are currently pending. Claims 6-12 withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected claim. In response to the Office Action mailed 11/05/2025 Applicant amended claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190094593 A1 to Hasegawa et al. in view of US 20130107160 A1 to Kim et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Hasegawa discloses a polarized partition set, comprising: a first polarized partition, which includes a polarizer A1 (at least Fig. 3 polarizer 110) and a retardation layer (Fig. 3 retardation layer 140) having an in-plane retardation Re(550) of 100 nm or more (See at least Table 1), and in which an angle formed by an absorption axis direction of the polarizer A1 and a slow axis direction of the retardation layer is more than 10° and less than 80°, or more than 100° and less than 170° clockwise or counterclockwise with respect to the absorption axis direction of the polarizer A1 (as shown in Fig. 3 para 76).
Hasegawa does not specifically disclose a second polarized partition, which includes a polarizer B and is arranged at a predetermined interval from the first polarized partition and the first polarized partition and the second polarized partition are discreet partitions with a space between.
However, Kim discloses a first and a second polarized partition, which includes a polarizer B and is arranged at a predetermined interval from the first polarized partition (See at least Fig. 1 polarizing plate 120, polarizing plate 130) and the first polarized partition and the second polarized partition are discreet partitions with a space between (See at least Fig. 2 display space 102) to display an object and a virtual image through the same surface (para 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include that a second polarized partition, which includes a polarizer B and is arranged at a predetermined interval from the first polarized partition and the first polarized partition and the second polarized partition are discreet partitions with a space between.
Regarding Claim 2. Hasegawa further discloses the first polarized partition further includes a polarizer A2 (Fig. 3 polarizer 182) on a side opposite to a side of the retardation layer on which the polarizer A1 is arranged (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3. Kim further discloses the first polarized partition is arranged so that the retardation layer is on a side closer to the second polarized partition with respect to the polarizer A1 (Fig. 1 polarizing plate 120 and retardation film 122).
Regarding Claim 4. Hasegawa further discloses the angle formed by the absorption axis direction of the polarizer A1 and the slow axis direction of the retardation layer in the first polarized partition is more than 10° and less than 80° clockwise or counterclockwise with respect to the absorption axis direction of the polarizer A1 (as shown in Fig. 3 para 76).
Regarding Claim 5. Hasegawa further discloses the retardation layer has a configuration obtained by combining a plurality of retardation films (See Fig. 6 retardation layers 140 through 181).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record fails to teach, suggest or disclose the limitation “the first polarized partition and the second polarized partition are discreet partitions with a space between,” newly added to amended claim 1. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as stated in the rejection above, Kim discloses the newly added limitation of claim 1 and Applicant’s invention is obvious in view of the combination of Hasegawa and Kim.
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 EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights