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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on July 7, 2025 has been entered.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20, 22 and 23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,921,367. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader than the patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 61 recites “wherein one of the first and second transmissive electrodes is patterned in areas separated by gaps, and the other of the first and second transmissive electrodes is not patterned,” whereas claim 20, from which claim 61 depends, has been amended to require both the first and second transmissive electrodes are patterned.
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.
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.
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 20, 22, 26, 27, 51 and 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatani et al. (US 2008/0316366), of record, in view of Mizuki et al. (US 2008/0123037).
Regarding claim 20, Takatani discloses a display device (Figs. 1-11) for use in ambient illumination comprising:
a spatial light modulator (14, Fig. 1) arranged to output light (paras. [0047, 0050]), wherein the spatial light modulator comprises a display polariser (13) arranged on a side of the spatial light modulator (Fig. 1), the display polariser being a linear polariser (para. [0045]);
a view angle control arrangement (12) comprising:
an additional polariser (11) arranged on the same side of the of the spatial light modulator (14) as the display polariser (13) outside the display polariser (Fig. 1), the additional polariser being a linear polariser (para. [0043]); and
at least one polar control retarder (12) arranged between the display polariser (13) and the additional polariser (11), the at least one polar control retarder including a switchable liquid crystal retarder (23, 12) comprising a layer of liquid crystal material (23), and first and second transmissive electrodes (26, 27) on opposite sides of the layer of liquid crystal material (Fig. 1), wherein the first and second transmissive electrodes (26, 27) are patterned in areas separated by gaps, such that on the the first and second transmissive electrodes the gaps define a plurality of areas and different voltages maybe applied to each of the plurality of areas (Figs. 4, 6; paras. [0063, 0099]), to provide plural addressable regions of the layer of liquid crystal material (paras. [0063, 0090, 0099, 0121]), at least one of the plural regions being in a shape of a mark for display to an observer (Figs. 4, 6; paras. [0041, 0063, 0092, 0122]); and
a control system arranged to control the spatial light modulator (14) and to apply voltages across the first and second transmissive electrodes (26, 27) for driving the layer of liquid crystal material (23) (paras. [0047-0049]),
wherein the control system is arranged to be operable in plural modes of operation (paras. [0040, 0049, 0122, 0129]), including:
a wide-angle operational display mode (Fig. 3), in which the control system controls the spatial light modulator (14) to display an operational image and applies voltages across the first and second transmissive electrodes (26, 27) that drive the layer of liquid crystal material (23) into a same state in different regions such that: the operational image is visible in each of the regions at a wide angle and at a narrow angle; and the mark is not visible at the narrow angle or at the wide angle (Fig. 3; paras. [0041, 0055, 0086]); and
a narrow-angle operational mark display mode (Fig. 4), in which the control system controls the spatial light modulator (14) to display an operational image and applies voltages across the first and second transmissive electrodes (26, 27) that drive the layer of liquid crystal material (23) into different states in different regions such that: the operational image is visible in each of the regions at the narrow angle but is not visible in each of the regions at the wide angle; and the mark is not visible at the narrow angle, but is visible at the wide angle (Fig. 4; paras. [0041, 0060, 0063, 0075, 0079, 0099-0100, 0122-0123]).
Takatani fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gaps that are aligned across the layer of liquid crystal material are offset.
However, Mizuki discloses a display device (Figs. 1-4), wherein the gaps (40, 41) that are aligned across the layer of liquid crystal material (30) are offset (Figs. 1-7; para. [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the gaps that are aligned across the layer of liquid crystal material are offset, as in Mizuki, into the display device of Takatani to improve response speed while suppressing a drop in contrast (Mizuki, para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 22, Takatani discloses wherein the display polariser (13) is an output polariser arranged on an output side of the spatial light modulator (14), and the additional polariser (11) is arranged on an output side of the display polariser (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 26, Takatani discloses wherein the wide angle is a polar angle of 45° from a normal to the display device at a predetermined azimuth angle around the normal to the display device (Figs. 3-4, 12-13; paras. [0056, 0061, 0071, 0081-0083, 0089]).
Regarding claim 27, Takatani discloses wherein the narrow angle is in a range of polar angles of from 0° to 20° from a normal to the spatial light modulator (14) at the predetermined azimuth angle (Figs. 3-4, 12-13; paras. 0081-0082).
Regarding claim 51, Takatani discloses wherein the mark is an icon or text (Figs. 4, 6; paras. [0041, 0092]).
Regarding claim 61, Takatani discloses wherein one of the first and second transmissive electrodes (26, 27) is patterned in areas separated by gaps, and the other of the first and second transmissive electrodes is not patterned (paras. [0063, 0090, 0121]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatani et al. (US 2008/0316366) in view of Mizuki et al. (US 2008/0123037), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Robinson et al. (US 2019/0250458), of record.
Regarding claim 23, Takatani in view of Mizuki discloses the limitations of claims 20 and 22 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the view angle control arrangement further comprises a reflective polariser arranged between the output polariser and the additional polariser, the reflective polariser being a linear polariser, and the at least one polar control retarder is arranged between the reflective polariser and the additional polariser.
However, Robinson discloses a display device (Fig. 1), wherein the view angle control arrangement (Fig. 1) further comprises a reflective polariser (302) arranged between the output polariser (218) and the additional polariser (318), the reflective polariser (302) being a linear polariser (para. [0254]), and the at least one polar control retarder (300) is arranged between the reflective polariser (302) and the additional polariser (318) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the view angle control arrangement further comprises a reflective polariser arranged between the output polariser and the additional polariser, the reflective polariser being a linear polariser, and the at least one polar control retarder is arranged between the reflective polariser and the additional polariser, as in Robinson, into the display device of Takatani and Mizuki for enhanced luminance and light efficiency.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takatani et al. (US 2008/0316366) in view of Mizuki et al. (US 2008/0123037), as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Gass et al. (US 2007/0040780), of record.
Regarding claim 52, Takatani in view of Mizuki discloses the limitations of claim 20 above, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the gaps have a width of at most twice a thickness of the layer of liquid crystal material.
However, Gass discloses a display device (Fig. 1), wherein the gaps (in between 103) have a width of at most twice a thickness of the layer of liquid crystal material (105) (Fig. 1; paras. [0161, 0165, 0232]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the gaps have a width of at most twice a thickness of the layer of liquid crystal material, as in Gass, into the display device of Takatani and Mizuki for enhanced contrast of the mark in the display as desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not solely rely on the primary reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Therefore, the new ground of rejection over Takatani in view of Mizuki is considered appropriate in accordance with the amendments to the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached on 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights