DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The present office action is made in response to the amendment filed by applicant on 08/07/2026. It is noted that in the amendment, applicant has made changes to the claims. There is not any change being made to the abstract, the drawings and the specification.
Regarding the claims, applicant has amended claims 1, 8 and 10.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/07/2026, and applicant's arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-9, have been fully considered and resulted in the following conclusions.
A) Regarding the claims, because applicant has not added/canceled any claim into/from the application, thus the pending claims are still claims 1-16 in which claims 1, 4-5, 7, 10, 13-14 and 16 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, 11-12 and 15 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 2-3, 6, 8-9, 11-12 and 15 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
B) Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Publication No. 2005/0018303), the rejection of claims 1, 7, 10 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US Patent No. 9,804,431, of record) in view of Harada (US Publication No 2005/0018303), and the rejection of claims 4-5 and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al in view of Harada set forth in the office action of 05/13/2026, the amendments to the claims as provided in the amendment of 08/07/2026 and applicant’s arguments provided in the mentioned amendment, pages 6-9, have been fully 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.
Regarding applicant’s argument about the angle formed by the inclined optical parts (121, 122) with respect to the light emitting surface of the optical material, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to vary the angle of each part (121, 122) corresponding to maintain the function of the film. In other words, when one skilled in the art adjust the angle formed by the part (121) with the emitting surface then (s)he will adjust a correspond adjustment to the angle defined by the part (122) with the emitting surface.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada (US Publication No. 2005/0018303) in view of Steininger et al (US Patent No. 5,795,643) (both of record).
Harada discloses a display device.
Regarding present claims 1 and 10, the display device as described in paragraphs [0036] and [0044] and shown in figs. 3 and 8 comprises the following features:
a) a display panel (30) and an optical film (34) formed on a surface of the display panel, see paragraph [0044]and fig. 8;
b) the optical film (34) as described in paragraph [0036] and shown in figs. 3 comprises the following features:
b1) an optical material layer (11) having a light emitting surface and a light incident surface disposed opposite to each other and parallel to each other;
b2) a plurality of optical parts (12) disposed in an array in the optical material layer (11) wherein the plurality of optical parts each has a long axis and a short axis intersecting each other, see figs. 3;
b3) each of optical parts (12) has a refractive index greater than a refractive index of the optical material layer (11), see paragraph [0036]; and
b4) an angle defined by the long axis of each optical part, i.e., the columnar structure (12), and a normal direction of the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (11) is in a range of (250; 900), thus the range of an angle defined by the long axis of the optical part, i.e., the columnar structure (12), and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (11) is in a range (00; 650) which covers the range of (00; 450) as claimed.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
While Harada does not positively disclosed that the range governing the angle between the long axis of the columnar structure (12) and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer the range of (00; 450) as claimed; however, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device provided by Harada by orientation/selection an arrangement of the array of optical parts (12) in a manner that the angle defined by the long axis of each the optical parts (12) and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (11) inside the claimed range, such as, an angle of 300, which is inside the range of (00, 650) to adjust the viewing angle of the light passing through the optical film to meet a particular application. See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
The only feature missing from the optical film provided by Harada is that Harada does not disclose the feature of “ in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap” which is newly added to the claims.
However, an optical film having a plurality of inclined objects embedded/disposed inside a material wherein the inclined objects are arranged parted from each other that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer does not overlap, or close to each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap, is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the optical film provided by Steininger et al. In particular, in the optical film as described in column 2 and shown in fig. 2, the inclined objects (PH) are arranged away from each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer does not overlap; however, in the embodiment described in column 1 and shown in fig. 1, Steininger et al discloses that the inclined objects (PH) are arranged close to each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical film provided by Harada by rearranging the inclined objects embedded/disposed inside the optical material close to each other as suggested by Steininger et al to adjust the diffusive performance of the optical film.
Claims 1, 7, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US Patent No. 9,804,431) in view of Harada (US Publication No 2005/0018303) and Steininger et al (US Patent No. 5,795,643) (all of record).
Park et al discloses a display device.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 10, the display device as described in columns 5-7 and 13-15 and shown in figs. 1-3 and 12 comprises the following features:
a1) a display panel (511,520,541,542,551,560,580,552,591,592,512,513) and an optical film (101) formed on a surface of the display panel, see columns 13-15 and fig. 12;
a2) the optical film (101) as described in columns 5-7 and shown in figs. 1-3 comprises the following features:
a21) an optical material layer (110) having a light emitting surface and a light incident surface disposed of opposite to each other and parallel to each other, see column 5 (lines 15-17) and figs. 1 and 3;
a22) a plurality of optical parts (122) disposed in an array in the optical material layer (110) wherein the plurality of optical parts each has a long axis and a short axis intersecting each other, see column 5 (lines 25-28) and figs. 1 and 3;
a23) each refractive index (n3) of the second rods (122) is greater than a refractive index (n1) of the optical material layer (110), see columns 5-6; and
a24) an angle defined by the long axis of each robs (122) and a normal direction of the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (110) is in a range of (50; 200), see column 5 and figs 3B.
It is noted that Park et al does not disclose that the angle defined by the long axis of each robs (122) and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (110) is in a range of (00; 450) as claimed in each of claims 1 and 10.
However, a display device having a diffusing film arranged on a display element wherein the diffusing film comprise a polymer layer and a plurality of columnar structure arranged inside the polymer layer wherein an angle defined by a long axis of each columnar structure and the emitting surface of the diffusing film in inside a range covering the claimed range is known to one skill in the art as can be seen in the display device provided by Harada.
In particular, in paragraphs [0036] and [0044] and shown in figs. 3 and 8, Harada discloses an optical film (34) for use in a display device wherein the optical film comprises
an optical material layer (11) having a light emitting surface and a light incident surface disposed of opposite to each other and parallel to each other and a plurality of optical parts (12) disposed in an array in the optical material layer (11) wherein the plurality of optical parts each has a long axis and a short axis intersecting each other. Regarding the orientation of each columnar structure, Harada discloses that an angle defined by the long axis of each columnar structures (12) and a normal direction of the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (11) is in a range of (250; 900), thus the range of an angle defined by the long axis of the optical part, i.e., the columnar structure (12), and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (11) is in a range (00; 650) which covers the range of (00; 450) as claimed.
Applicant should note that it was decided in the Courts that “the disclosure in the prior art of any value within a claimed range is an anticipation of that range.”, In re Wertheim, 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Petering, 301 F. 2d 676, 133 USPQ 275 CCPA 1962).
While Harada does not positively disclosed that the range governing the angle between the long axis of the columnar structure (12) and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer the range of (00; 450) as claimed; however, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device provided by Harada by orientation/selection an arrangement of the array of optical parts (12) in a manner that the angle defined by the long axis of each the optical parts (12) and the light emitting surface of the optical material layer (11) inside the claimed range, such as, an angle of 300, which is inside the range of (00, 650) to adjust the viewing angle of the light passing through the optical film to meet a particular application. See In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
The only feature missing from the combined product provided by Park and Harada is that it does not disclose the feature of “ in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap” which is newly added to the claims.
However, an optical film having a plurality of inclined objects embedded/disposed inside a material wherein the inclined objects are arranged away from each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer does not overlap, or close to each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap , is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the optical film provided by Steininger et al. In particular, in the optical film as described in column 2 and shown in fig. 2, the inclined objects (PH) are arranged in away from each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer does not overlap; however, in the embodiment described in column 1 and shown in fig. 1, Steininger et al discloses that the inclined objects (PH) are arranged close to each other so that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined product provided by Park and Harada by rearranging the inclined objects embedded/disposed inside the optical material close to each other as suggested by Steininger et al to adjust the diffusive performance of the optical film.
b) Regarding present claims 7 and 16, the material of the optical material layer (110) is selected from a polyester-based resin, an acrylic-based resin, a cellulose-based resin, a polyolefin-based resin, a polyvinyl-chloride-based resin, a polycarbonate-based resin, a phenolic resin and a urethane-based resin, see column 7 (lines 40-45), which is recited in each claim.
Claims 4-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al in view of Harada and Steininger et al.
Regarding present claims 4 and 13, it is noted that in the optical film (101) provided by Park et al, the refractive index (n1) of the optical material layer (110) is in the range of (1.4; 1.6) which is inside the range of (1.3; 1.6) as claimed, and the refractive index (n2, n3) of the robs (121, 121), i.e., the optical parts, each is in a range of (1.45; 2.1) which covers the range of (1.4; 1.7) as claimed, see Park et al in column 6 (lines 48-51).
While the range of refractive index of the optical parts as claimed is boarder/wider than the range of the refractive index of the optical parts as claimed; however, the materials used to make the optical parts as disclosed by Park et al, see columns 7-9 are similar to the materials used to make the optical parts as disclosed in the present specification, see present specification in paragraph [0037] and it is a knowledge that when a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variation of it. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical film provided by Park et al by using/selecting any suitable materials in the market which materials having a refractive index in the claimed range to make the optical parts (121, 122) of the optical film to meet a particular application.
Applicant should further note that it has been held in the Courts that a discovery an optimum value or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Wertheim, supra; Titanium Metals Corporation of America V. Banner, supra.
Regarding present claims 5 and 14, such claimed features are provided by Park et al as can be seen in column 6, lines 22-51.
Conclusion
10. The US Publication No. 2016/0070035 is cited as of interest in that it discloses an optical film comprises a plurality of inclined objects embedded/disposed inside an optical material wherein the inclined objects are arranged in a manner that in two adjacent ones of the plurality of optical parts, an orthographic projection of one of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer and an orthographic projection of another of the plurality of optical parts on the light incident surface of the optical material layer at least partially overlap, see fig. 7(a).
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached on M – Th (6:00 am to 17:00 pm)
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights