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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 15-16, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. (US 2010/0277805) in view of Moskovich (US 5,200,861).
Regarding claim 1, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses an optical film, configured for use as a component of an optical device that includes a light source 112, the optical film comprising:
a main body (10);
multiple microstructures (12), positioned on one side of the main body (10); and
an opaque layer (metallic layer 114 provided with micro-holes 1141 [0128] or a second layer 14 with a micro-pattern comprising opaque first partial regions and transparent second partial regions (abstract)), affixed to the other side of the main body 10 opposite the microstructures 12, the opaque layer (14/114) having multiple apertures (micro-holes 114);
wherein the center point of the apertures (micro-holes 1141) overlaps with the center point of the microstructures (12) on a projection plane (shown in Fig. 11b [the focal points of the micro-lenses corresponding to the center points of the micro-holes [0041]);
wherein the opaque layer is oriented towards the light source (14 and 112; figures 11a-11b)
wherein the optical film is configured to produce collimated light by refracting light from light source passing through the apertures via the convex lenses (the micro-hole arrays are illuminated through the micro-lens array with laser light / collimated light; see at least paragraph 0119).
Schilling et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Schilling et al. is silent regarding wherein the equivalent diameter of the apertures divided by the equivalent diameter of the microstructures is less than or equal to 0.3; wherein the equivalent diameter of the microstructures divided by the thickness of the main body is less than or equal to 1.3, and greater than or equal to 0.7; and the microstructures being protruding arcuate structures in the shape of convex lenses having an aspheric surface profile designed to collimate light .
Schilling et al. teaches wherein the equivalent diameter of the apertures divided by the equivalent diameter of the microstructures is less than or equal to 0.3 (It can be provided that the diameter of the micro-hole is 1% (less than or equal to 0.3) to 50% of the diameter of the micro-lens [0043]]; and wherein the equivalent diameter of the microstructures divided by the thickness of the main body is less than or equal to 1.3, and greater than or equal to 0.7; ( It can further be provided that the diameter D of the micro-lenses is less than 50µm [0020]. The optically effective thickness d of the carrier layer 10, measured from the planar side of the micro-lenses to the underside of the carrier film 10 (see FIG. 1), can be in the range of 10 µm to 1000 µm. For window banknotes or the like a range of 15µm to 50µm can be preferred [0093]. D/d=50µm /50µm=1 less than or equal to 1.3, and greater than or equal to 0.7]. Therefore, 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 ranges as taught by Schilling et al. in order to achieve a multi-layer body with a micro-lens arrangement, which can be used as an optical security element.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, 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. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In addition, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).Therefore, 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 lens as taught by Moskovich in order to correct aberrations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
Therefore, Schilling et al. as modified by Moskovich teaches the microstructures being protruding arcuate structures in the shape of convex lenses having an aspheric surface designed to collimate light.
Regarding claim 2, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses the optical film, wherein the microstructures 12 and apertures [micro-holes 114l] are uniformly arranged on the main body.
Regarding claim 3, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses the optical film, wherein the microstructures 12 and apertures [micro-holes 114l| are arranged in an array pattern.
Regarding claim 5, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses the optical film, wherein the microstructures and apertures are randomly arranged on the main body.
Regarding claim 6, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses the optical film, wherein the microstructures intersect with each other on the main body 10.
Regarding claim 7, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses the optical film, wherein, wherein the opaque layer is a reflective material (metal layer).
Regarding claim 9, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses discloses the optical film, wherein the opaque layer is a reflective material (metal layer).
Regarding claim 15, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses a display screen, comprising:
a display module; and
at least one optical film, comprising:
a main body (10);
multiple microstructures (12), positioned on one side of the main body (10); and
an opaque layer (metallic layer 114 provided with micro-holes 1141 [0128] or a second layer 14 with a micro-pattern comprising opaque first partial regions and transparent second partial regions (abstract)), affixed to the other side of the main body 10 opposite the microstructures 12, the opaque layer (14/114) having multiple apertures (micro-holes 114);
wherein the center point of the apertures (micro-holes 1141) overlaps with the center point of the microstructures (12) on a projection plane (shown in Fig. 11b [the focal points of the micro-lenses corresponding to the center points of the micro-holes [0041]);
wherein the opaque layer is oriented towards the light source (14 and 112; figures 11a-11b)
wherein the optical film is configured to produce collimated light by refracting light from light source passing through the apertures via the convex lenses (the micro-hole arrays are illuminated through the micro-lens array with laser light / collimated light; see at least paragraph 0119).
Schilling et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 15 above. However, Schilling et al. is silent regarding wherein the equivalent diameter of the apertures divided by the equivalent diameter of the microstructures is less than or equal to 0.3; wherein the equivalent diameter of the microstructures divided by the thickness of the main body is less than or equal to 1.3, and greater than or equal to 0.7; and the microstructures being protruding arcuate structures in the shape of convex lenses having an aspheric surface profile designed to collimate light.
Schilling et al. teaches multiple light sources. Therefore, 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 ranges as taught by Schilling et al. in order to achieve a multi-layer body with a micro-lens arrangement, which can be used as an optical security element.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, 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. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In addition, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).Therefore, 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 lens as taught by Moskovich in order to correct abberations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
Therefore, Schilling et al. as modified by Moskovich teaches the microstructures being protruding arcuate structures in the shape of convex lenses having an aspheric surface designed to collimate light.
Regarding claim 16, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses wherein the apertures in the opaque layer are formed by a self-aligned lithography process; wherein, in the self-aligned lithography process, each microstructure acts as a focusing element to guide incident light onto a photoresist layer positioned opposite the microstructures, thereby precisely defining and forming apertures aligned with respective microstructures.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 18, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses wherein the apertures in the opaque layer are formed by a self-aligned lithography process; wherein, in the self-aligned lithography process, each microstructure acts as a focusing element to guide incident light onto a photoresist layer positioned opposite the microstructures, thereby precisely defining and forming apertures aligned with respective microstructures.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Claims 4, 10-13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. in view of Moskovich; in view of Yamaguchi (US 6,876,408).
Regarding claim 4, Schilling et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Schilling et al. is silent regarding the honeycomb shape. Yamaguchi teaches the optical film, wherein the microstructures 26a and apertures 28 are arranged in a honeycomb pattern (as schematically shown in FIGS. 6A and 6B, the microlenses 26a are arranged in a hexagonal close-packed structure (honeycomb structure)). Therefore, 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 microstructures and the apertures as taught by Yamaguchi in order to increase a range of viewing angles in liquid crystal display devices.
Regarding claim 10, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses a display module, comprising:
at least one optical film, placed above the light source (112), comprising:
a main body (10);
multiple microstructures (12), positioned on one side of the main body (10); and
an opaque layer (metallic layer 114 provided with micro-holes 1141 [0128] or a second layer 14 with a micro-pattern comprising opaque first partial regions and transparent second partial regions (abstract)), affixed to the other side of the main body 10 opposite the microstructures 12, the opaque layer (14/114) having multiple apertures (micro-holes 114);
wherein the center point of the apertures (micro-holes 1141) overlaps with the center point of the microstructures (12) on a projection plane (shown in Fig. 11b [the focal points of the micro-lenses corresponding to the center points of the micro-holes [0041]);
wherein the opaque layer is oriented towards the light source (14 and 112; figures 11a-11b)
wherein the optical film is configured to produce collimated light by refracting light from light source passing through the apertures via the convex lenses (the micro-hole arrays are illuminated through the micro-lens array with laser light / collimated light; see at least paragraph 0119).
Schilling et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above. However, Schilling et al. is silent regarding wherein the equivalent diameter of the apertures divided by the equivalent diameter of the microstructures is less than or equal to 0.3; wherein the equivalent diameter of the microstructures divided by the thickness of the main body is less than or equal to 1.3, and greater than or equal to 0.7; and the microstructures being protruding arcuate structures in the shape of convex lenses having an aspheric surface profile designed to collimate light, and multiple light sources.
Schilling et al. teaches multiple light sources. Therefore, 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 ranges as taught by Schilling et al. in order to achieve a multi-layer body with a micro-lens arrangement, which can be used as an optical security element.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, 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. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
In addition, Moskovich discloses using aspheric lenses in order to correct for aberrations and allow for a large field of view and a large aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51).Therefore, 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 lens as taught by Moskovich in order to correct abberations and provide a large field of view and aperture (see e.g. Column 3, lines 40-51 of Moskovich).
Therefore, Schilling et al. as modified by Moskovich teaches the microstructures being protruding arcuate structures in the shape of convex lenses having an aspheric surface designed to collimate light.
Yamaguchi teaches multiple light sources (22; figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify light sources as taught by Yamaguchi in order to increase a range of viewing angles in liquid crystal display devices.
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi teaches the display module further includes at least one diffusion layer [a diffuse reflecting layer 32], positioned between the optical film 18 and the light sources 22.
Regarding claim 12, Yamaguchi teaches the display module, wherein the diffusion layer [a diffuse reflecting layer 32] is affixed to the underside of the optical film 18.
Regarding claim 13, Yamaguchi teaches the display module further includes a liquid crystal panel 12, positioned above the optical film 18.
Regarding claim 17, Schilling et al. (figures 8- 11b) discloses wherein the apertures in the opaque layer are formed by a self-aligned lithography process; wherein, in the self-aligned lithography process, each microstructure acts as a focusing element to guide incident light onto a photoresist layer positioned opposite the microstructures, thereby precisely defining and forming apertures aligned with respective microstructures.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. in view of Moskovich; in view of Nagasawa et al. (US 2003/0002161).
Regarding claim 7, Schilling et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Schilling et al. is silent regarding wherein the opaque layer is composed of light-absorbing material. Nagasawa et al. teaches the optical film 1, wherein the opaque layer is composed of light-absorbing material [the light shielding layer 15 by selectively printing light-absorbing colored pigment only on the protrusions 14 according to various printing methods such as screen printing and gravure printing [0006]]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify an optical film as taught by Nagasawa et al., wherein the opaque layer is composed of light-absorbing material for installing a light absorbing layer or a light scattering layer on the rising faces in order to restrain the stray light from occurring.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. in view of Moskovich; in view of Nobuo (JP 2007/187842).
Regarding claim 7, Schilling et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above. However, Schilling et al. is silent regarding wherein the material of the main body. Nobuo teaches the optical film, wherein the main body is made of polycarbonate (PC), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or glass [the constituent material of the substrate body 2, for example, various resin materials, various glass material], and the opaque layer is made of nickel, silver, gold, aluminum, titanium dioxide, or silicon dioxide [the light shielding film (black matrix 3) is formed using a positive photopolymer as the light shielding film forming material. Materials other than polymers may be used. For example, a reversal developing material such as a silver salt photosensitive material may be used as the light shielding film forming material]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify an optical film as Yamaguchi disclosed, wherein the main body is made of polycarbonate, polymethyl methacrylate, polyethylene terephthalate or glass, and the opaque layer is made of nickel, silver, gold, aluminum, titanium dioxide, or silicon dioxide for efficiently manufacturing the microlens substrate, to provide a transmission screen equipped with the microlens substrate, and to provide a rear-type projector as Nobuo taught.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schilling et al. in view of Moskovich; further in view of Yamaguchi and Yoichi (JPH09258160).
Regarding claim 14, Schilling et al. discloses the limitation as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above. Schilling et al. is silent regarding a polarizing beam splitter. Yoichi teaches a display module, comprising: at least one optical film [a long focus lenticular lenses 21a, 22a and 23a]; a polarizing beam splitter [a dichroic prism 10 obvious acts like or placed by polarizing beam splitter| and a spatial light modulator [a liquid crystal display panel 30], with the polarizing beam splitter placed above the optical film, the light emitted by the light sources is reflected by the polarizing beam splitter to the spatial light modulator 30. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the display module as Schilling et al. disclosed further includes a polarizing beam splitter and a spatial light modulator, with the polarizing beam splitter placed above the optical film. The light emitted by the light sources is reflected by the polarizing beam splitter to the spatial light modulator for forming a projected image with a single light crystal panel, and more particularly to improving the brightness of the projected image with a simple structure as Yoichi taught.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. 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.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871