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 amendment filed by the Applicant on 6/12/26 is acknowledged.
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:
For claim 21, the limitation of “wherein the at least one microstructure is configured to direct light rays toward the viewing area by refraction” is not disclosed in the specification.
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 Proir 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 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao (CN 1869768 A) in view of Wataru et al (WO 2021192868 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches a digital display apparatus (Fig.7,8 and 3B); the digital display apparatus comprising: a light source (70) operable to emit light rays; a rigid light transporter 74/84 facing a viewing area and operable to transmit emitted light rays from the light source towards the viewing area; and an optical film 76/86 operable to extract light rays transmitted through the light transporter towards the viewing area, and further comprising at least one microstructure (claim 1 of Yao) arranged on a second side opposite the first side,
the microstructures having a curvature wherein each of the at least one microstructure has a peak (see Figures 7,8 and 3B);
with the first untextured side (lower side of 76/86) facing the light transporter and wherein each of the at least one microstructure is positioned on the flexible optical film relative to a position of the light source to achieve optimization of homogeneity (see in Yao: it will firstly converged in the converging region 38 and then diverging; using the characteristic can achieve high incident angle light rays of the corner convergence and homogenization).
Yao does not teach: the display device for use in a motor vehicle; a curved rigid light transporter; an optically transparent adhesive applied to a convex surface of the curved rigid light transporter; and a flexible optical film; the optical film having a first untextured side in contact with the optically transparent adhesive ;wherein the flexible optical film is adhered directly to a curved surface of the curved rigid light transporter by the optically transparent adhesive, and a peak of the curvature of the at least one microstructure opposing the curved surface of the curved rigid light transporter, wherein the optical film has a total thickness ranging between 100-400 micrometers.
Wataru teaches a display device (at least Fig.2) for use in a motor vehicle (disclosed as: This configuration is becoming mainstream for in-vehicle applications); a curved rigid light transporter (a rigid cover window 80 having a curved surface); an optically transparent adhesive 21 applied to a convex surface of the curved rigid light transporter; and a flexible optical film 10 (The optical film 10 in Wataru, also the disclosure of Wataru: suppressing the occurrence of peeling or wrinkling of the optical film 10 AND On the other hand, if the strain sectional area S .sub.1 of the first pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 21 is too large may cause peeling or wrinkling of the optical film 10, is indicative of a flexible film; furthermore the definition of film in merriam-webster dictionary is: a thin flexible transparent sheet (as of plastic) used) ; the optical film having a first untextured side in contact with the optically transparent adhesive; wherein the flexible optical film is adhered directly to a curved surface of the curved rigid light transporter by the optically transparent adhesive and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the rigid curved light window, as disclosed in Wataru, in the device of Yao, such that a peak of the curvature of the at least one microstructure opposing the curved surface of the curved rigid light transporter in order to impart impact resistance.
Further Yao in view of Wataru do not explicitly teach the optical film has a total thickness ranging between 100 micrometer to 400 micrometer. However, throughout Wataru, the thickness values range in micrometers: such as adhesives 5-500 microns, polarizing plate thickness is 75 microns and thickness of window 80: The thickness of the cover window 80 is, for example, about 50 to 2000 μm and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a thickness in the 100-400 micron range for the optical film by routine experimentation and simulation, in the device of Yao in view of Wataru in order to achieve a compact thin display device for in-vehicle applications.
Regarding claim 18, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the digital display apparatus, wherein the optically transparent adhesive is applied over an entire extent of the convex surface of the curved rigid light transporter (from teachings of Wataru).
Regarding claim 19, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the digital display apparatus, wherein the at least one microstructure comprises a continuously curved surface profile (Fig.3B and 8 of Yao).
Regarding claim 20, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the digital display apparatus, wherein the curvature profile varies continuously across a cross-section of the at least one microstructure (Fig.3B and 8 of Yao).
Regarding claim 21, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the digital display apparatus, wherein the at least one microstructure is configured to direct light rays toward the viewing area by refraction (Fig.3B and 8 of Yao, see Objection above).
Regarding claim 22, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the digital display apparatus, wherein the flexible optical film is formed on a flat surface prior to being adhered to the curved rigid light transporter (the claimed recitation is drawn to the method of making the device and therefore does not have patentable weight for the claimed product).
Claims 3,4, 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wataru and further in view of Vasylyev (US 20180113244 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the invention set forth in claim 1, but does not teach at least one microstructure has a height ranging 5 µm to 100 µm.
Vasylyev teaches the microstructures with the height ranging between 2-15 microns ([0091] in Vasylyev), but does not explicitly teach a range of 5 µm to 100 µm. However, since Vasylyev teaches height within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a height in the range of 5 µm to 100 µm, since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the “optimum range” involves only routine skill in the art in order to optimize the uniformity of light.
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Wataru and Vasylyev teaches a digital display apparatus, wherein the at least one microstructure has a width ranging between 50 µm to 100 µm (20-200 microns in [0096] in Vasylyev).
Regarding claims 9 and 24, Yao in view of Wataru and Vasylyev teaches a digital display apparatus, wherein the flexible optical film comprises a lower count of the at least one microstructure positioned nearer to the position of the light source, and a higher count of the at least one microstructure positioned nearer to the position of the light source (for claim 9) and wherein the at least one microstructure is distributed to compensate for attenuation of light along the curved rigid light transporter (for claim 24) (first 4 lines of [0078] in Vasylyev).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wataru and further in view of Kinder (US 20080232135 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Wataru teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding an optically transparent adhesive deposited between the rigid light transporter and the flexible optical film.
However, it is well known in the art to use index matching adhesive between the light guide and other films. Kinder teaches an index matching adhesive bonded to the light guide ([0037]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the index matching adhesive as disclosed in Kiner in the device of Yao in view of Wataru in order to achieve smooth light transmission without deviation/reflection.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Wataru and further in view of Okita (US 20070164966 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Wataru teaches a curved light guide (Fig.2-6) but does not teach the viewing area has a size of at least 16 inches.
Okita teaches a viewing area has a size of at least 16 inches ([0038] and since diagonal dimension is less than length for the viewing area) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the viewing area as disclosed in Okita in the device of Yao in view of Wataru in order to increase the size of the display area.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Wataru and further in view of Kang (US 20170184775 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Yao in view of Wataru teaches a curved light guide (Fig.2-6) but does not teach the rigid light transporter has a curve radius ranging from 0 mm to 4000 mm (for claim 15) and the rigid light transporter has the curve radius ranging from 1000 mm to 3000 mm (for claim 16).
Kang teaches a curved light guide with a radius curvature of 1000 mm ([0065]) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the size as disclosed in Kang in the device of Yao in view of Wataru in order to achieve a curved and flexible display device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Yao in view of Wataru and Kang and further in view of Montgomery (US 20100238367, cited previously) or Huang (2020033658, cited previously)
Regarding claim 17, Yao in view of Wataru and Kang teaches the invention set forth in claim 15 above, but does not explicitly teach the flexible optical film has a mirror polished surface quality. However, Yao in view of Wataru and Kang teach for the optical film:
In Montgomery: Reflector 11 in [0015] of Montgomery. [0118] FIG. 7a illustrates an embodiment, in the form of a display, 70, comprising an SLM display panel, 1, and a backlight, 71, for use in one of the aforementioned applications. The backlight comprises a light-guide, 73, a reflector, 11, positioned under the light-guide, a light source positioned along one edge of the light-guide, 12, a lens array positioned above the light-guide, 72, a lower diffuser layer, 8, a BEF layer, 6, and an upper diffuser layer, 5, in that order. [0121] The reflector, diffusers and BEF may also be of known types. [0126] The lightguide, 73, consists of a slab type flexible transparent material that guides light by total internal reflection along and across its length and breadth.
And in Huang: for example, a light guide layer 164 and/or a reflective layer 172.
Therefore, prior art teaches the optical film layer beneath the light transponder has reflective properties in order to efficiently reflect light upwards and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a mirror polished surface for the region other than the microstructure regions on the surface of the optical film, in Yao in view of Wataru and Kang in order to efficiently reflect light in the upwards direction.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao in view of Wataru and further in view of Huang (US 20200333658 A1)
Regarding claim 23, Yao in view of Wataru and Kinder teaches the invention set forth in claim 6 above, but is silent regarding the optically transparent adhesive provides a continuous optical interface between the flexible optical film and the curved rigid light transporter.
However, it is well known in the art to use adhesive throughout between two optical elements between the light guide and other films. Huang discloses for Figure 4:
For example, the adhesive material 158 can be an optical glue disposed between the polarizing layer 112 and the first flexible substrate 102.
And it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the adhesive throughout between optical elements as disclosed in Huang in the device of Yao in view of Wataru and Kinder in order to achieve tight adhesive and perfect index matching.
Other art
Cited previously: US 20220260771 A1
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 6/12/26 is acknowledged and were found to be persuasive, however they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights