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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-20, received 5/16/2023, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species 1A, 2A and 3A (claims 1-3, 11-13, 15-17) in the reply filed on 2/12/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 4-10, 14, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to at least one nonelected Group/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/12/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 6/19/2023 and 12/17/2024 was considered.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The originally filed specification does not appear to provide explicit disclosure for the optical stack being thermoformed against a textured curved surface of a curved mold with the protective film disposed between the optical film and the textured surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a liner applied to the optical film prior to thermoforming so that texture from the mold is not imparted to the optical film, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Claims 1 and 11 require that the optical stack is thermoformed against a textured curved surface of a curved mold without imparting the texture to the optical film, which is only described in the specification as being achieved when a liner is applied to the optical film prior to thermoforming so that texture from the mold is not imparted to the optical film (see at least paragraph [0067] of the US publication 2023/0305210 A1 of the current application). Whereas, when there is no liner applied to the optical film prior to thermoforming the texture from the mold is imparted to the optical film (see at least current claim 15, figure 4D, and at least paragraph [0067] of the US publication 2023/0305210 A1 of the current application). There is not disclosure in the specification for not imparting texture from the mold without a liner applied to the optical film. Therefore, a liner being applied to the optical film prior to thermoforming is considered critical or essential so that texture from the mold is not imparted to the optical film.
Claims 2-3 and 12-13 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 15 requires that the optical stack is thermoformed against a textured curved surface of a curved mold with the protective film is disposed between the optical film and the textured surface. The originally filed specification does not appear to provide explicit disclosure for the optical stack being thermoformed against a textured curved surface of a curved mold with the protective film disposed between the optical film and the textured surface, or that the texture would be imparted to the protective film. The specification does disclose that a liner is applied to the optical film prior to thermoforming so that texture from the mold is not imparted to the optical film, but claim 15 does not include a liner, and claim 15 implies that the texture would be imparted to the protective film (see at least paragraph [0067] of the US publication 2023/0305210 A1 of the current application). Therefore, claim 15 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of the claims from which they depend.
Claim Interpretation & Prior Art
Bonding strength of the optical film to the optical element has been interpreted in light of the specification wherein page 31, line 29 through page 32, line 2 describe how the “bond strength of the film to the lens was tested using a cross hatch tape pull test. This was done by scoring through the insert molded film on the lens surface in a cross hatch pattern, adhering tape over the scored cross hatch film surface, and pulling the tape off the 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ambur et al. (also referred to as Ambre et al.), CN 205246924 U (hereafter Ambur; It is noted that CN 205246924 U also corresponds to US 9,555,589 B1 (of record), and any references set forth below to figures, elements and page numbers are made with respect to the English machine translation of CN 205246924 U attached) in view of Mori, JP H06-258604 A, of record (hereafter Mori) and Duncan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/018864 A1 (hereafter Duncan).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, as best understood, Ambur discloses an optical assembly (see at least element 610), comprising an optical lens (see at least element 612, page 17) having optical power in two mutually orthogonal directions (see at least pages 7, 9, 12-13); and
a thermoformed optical stack comprising an integrally formed optical film (see at least elements 610, 625 and 627, or 615 and 617, as well as page 17 regarding figure 6 and page 37 regarding Examples 6-8), the thermoformed optical stack thermoformed against a curved surface of a curved mold without imparting the texture to the optical film (see at least pages 11-13, 17), the optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers reflecting or transmitting light primarily by optical interference (see at least pages 9-10, “polymeric multilayer optical film reflective polarizer”, “AdvancedPolarizingFilm” APF, pages 17-18, and page 24 wherein a suitable polymer multilayer reflective polarizer is for example described in US 5,882,774 to Jonza et al., of record), the optical lens directly bonded to the optical film (see at least page 17).
Ambur does not specifically disclose a protective film and/or liner not integral with the optical film, or wherein the mold includes a textured curved surface.
However, Mori teaches an optical assembly including a molded optical lens wherein an optical lens includes a protective film and/or liner not integral with the optical lens (see at least figures 1-7, elements 1, 2, 5, 7, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical assembly of Ambur to include the teachings of Mori so that the optical assembly includes a protective film and/or liner not integral with the optical film, for the purpose of using a well-known type of protective film and/or liner for covering an optical element during a molding process, and which is removable after the molding process.
Additionally, Duncan teaches an optical assembly including a molded optical element, wherein the mold may include curved surfaces which may be textured (see at least paragraphs [0122]-[0124] and figure 1 of Duncan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical assembly of Ambur in view of Mori to include the teachings of Duncan so that the mold includes a textured curved surface, for the purpose of forming an optical element while imparting desired physical and optical characteristics.
Regarding claim 15, Ambur discloses a method of forming an optical assembly (see at least element 610) comprising:
providing a curved mold having a curved surface (see at least pages 11-13, 17);
providing an optical stack comprising an integrally formed optical film (see at least elements 610, 625 and 627, or 615 and 617, as well as page 17 regarding figure 6 and page 37 regarding Examples 6-8), the optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers reflecting or transmitting light primarily by optical interference (see at least pages 9-10, “polymeric multilayer optical film reflective polarizer”, “AdvancedPolarizingFilm” APF, pages 17-18, and page 24 wherein a suitable polymer multilayer reflective polarizer is for example described in US 5,882,774 to Jonza et al., of record);
thermoforming the optical stack against the curved surface to form a thermoformed curved optical film (see at least elements 610, 625 and 627, or 615 and 617, as well as page 17 regarding figure 6 and page 37 regarding Examples 6-8); and
molding an optical lens having optical power in two mutually orthogonal directions onto the thermoformed curved optical film (see at least pages 7, 9, 12-13), such that the optical lens is directly bonded to the thermoformed curved optical film (see at least page 17).
Ambur does not specifically disclose a protective film and/or liner not integral with the optical film, or wherein the mold includes a textured curved surface with the protective film disposed between the optical film and the curved surface.
However, Mori teaches an optical assembly including a molded optical lens wherein an optical lens includes a protective film and/or liner not integral with the optical lens between a curved mold and the optical lens (see at least figures 1-7, elements 1, 2, 5, 7, 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ambur to include the teachings of Mori so that the method includes a protective film and/or liner not integral with the optical film, wherein the mold includes a curved surface with the protective film disposed between the optical film and the curved surface, for the purpose of using a well-known type of protective film and/or liner for covering an optical element during a molding process, and which is removable after the molding process.
Additionally, Duncan teaches an optical assembly including a molded optical element, wherein the mold may include curved surfaces which may be textured (see at least paragraphs [0122]-[0124] and figure 1 of Duncan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ambur in view of Mori to include the teachings of Duncan so that the mold includes a textured curved surface, for the purpose of forming an optical element while imparting desired physical and optical characteristics.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 12-13 and 16-17 could be objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the 112(a) rejections set forth above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2, 12 and 16 would be objected to for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest that the optical lens is diffusion bonded to the optical film, as generally set forth in claims 2, 12 and 16, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1, 11 and 15 from which claims 2, 12 and 16 depend.
Claims 3, 13 and 17 depend from claims 2, 12 and 16 respectively, and therefore would be objected to for at least the same reasons as claims 2, 12 and 16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 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 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/26/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872