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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/03/2025 and 03/11/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on provisional 63/442,185 dated 01/31/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claims 6 and 15 present elements “a fifth height, a sixth height, a seventh height, and an eighth height” however these features are not shown in the drawings. Therefore, the features of claims 6 and 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 line 4 states “and an eight height.” This is likely a typographical grammatical error. The Office suggests the claim be corrected to say “and an eighth height.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-5, 7, 11-12, and 19-20 are 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 2 and 19-20 are rejected for reference to an object that is variable. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite because:
The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the height of the paper feeding unit in relation to a user of a specific height who is performing operations on the printer.... Claim 1 fails to specify, however, a positional relationship of the user and the printer to each other.
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II)
In the instant application, claims 2 and 19-20 make reference to “an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -15 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 60°.” However, it is not clear what said ‘reduction’ is made in reference to. It is unclear if said ‘reduction’ is attributed to similar devices in the field, another part of the optical unit, a mirror, a rough surface, etc. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for reference to an object which is variable.
Claims 3-5 depend from claim 2 and therefore inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected for reference to an object that is variable. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite because:
The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the height of the paper feeding unit in relation to a user of a specific height who is performing operations on the printer.... Claim 1 fails to specify, however, a positional relationship of the user and the printer to each other.
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II)
In the instant application, claims 7 and 20 make reference a device such that “the scattering region scatters light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 5.0° over the wavelength range of interest.” However, it is not clear what type of light the scattering is coming from. It is unclear if said ‘scattering” is attributed to the reflection of incident light or light incident at an angle. Furthermore, it its unclear if the scatter is tested at each wavelength of interest or if a standardized light sourced is used to measure the scatter over the ‘wavelength range of interest’. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for reference to an object which is variable.
Claim 11 is rejected for reference to an object that is variable. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite because:
The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the height of the paper feeding unit in relation to a user of a specific height who is performing operations on the printer.... Claim 1 fails to specify, however, a positional relationship of the user and the printer to each other.
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II)
In the instant application, claim 11 makes reference a device such that “a scattering amplitude of the scattering region at a scattering angle of less than 4° is less than 10-3 times a peak scattering amplitude at specular when the scattering amplitude is averaged over a wavelength range from 400 nm to 770 nm.” However, it is not clear what type of light the scattering is coming from. It is unclear if said ‘scattering” is attributed to the reflection of incident light or light incident at an angle. Furthermore, it is unclear if the scatter is tested at each wavelength of interest or if a standardized light sourced is used to measure the scatter over the ‘wavelength range of interest’. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for reference to an object which is variable.
Claim 12 is rejected for reference to an object that is variable. A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). In Miyazaki, the Board held that claims to a large printer were not sufficiently definite because:
The language of claim 1 attempts to claim the height of the paper feeding unit in relation to a user of a specific height who is performing operations on the printer.... Claim 1 fails to specify, however, a positional relationship of the user and the printer to each other.
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(II)
In the instant application, claim 12 makes reference a device such that “the discrete distribution of heights follow a symmetric pattern about a center height difference of the discrete distribution of heights.” However, ‘a center height difference’ is in reference to that which is variable. The instant application defines ‘a center height difference’ in two distinct manners. Paragraph [0021] states: “wherein the center height difference is the smallest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights.” Whereas paragraph [0023] has a contradictory definition: “wherein the center height difference is not the greatest difference or the smallest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights.” It is unclear which definition of ‘a center height difference’ should be used in the interpretation of claim 12. Furthermore, it is unclear how the variable definition of ‘a center height difference’ effects the symmetric pattern of the device. Therefore, the claim is indefinite for reference to an object which is variable.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 20230028863 A1) and further in view of Hart (US 11971519 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Feng teaches in Figs. 1-3: a display article (“display article 10”; [0083], Fig. 1) comprising:
a first major surface (“primary surface 18”; [0084], Fig. 1);
a second major surface (“base-plane 30”; [0085], Fig. 3) opposing the first major surface (18, see Fig. 1 and 3); and
a scattering region (20) formed in the first major surface (“textured region 20 and parallel to the primary surface 18”; [0085], Fig. 3), wherein, within the scattering region (20), the first major surface (18) comprises a plurality of regions comprising a discrete distribution of heights (“surface features 38”; [0087], see Fig. 3) measured relative to an imaginary base plane (“base-plane 30”; [0091], “The base-plane 30 is conceptual not structural”; [0085]) extending through the display article (10) and parallel to the first major surface (see Fig. 3A in which 18 is parallel to the base plane 30), wherein:
the discrete distribution of heights (38) comprises n heights, with n being an even integer greater than or equal to 4 (the heights measured from the base plane 30 include 34, 54b, 54a, and 28. Therefore, n=4.),
each height in the discrete distribution of heights (38) occupies a surface area percentage of the scattering region that is within 3% of 100%/n (“The percentage of the area of the cross-section that the larger surface features 38L collectively occupy is referred to herein as the “fill-fraction” of the larger surface features 38L. The percentage of the area of the cross-section that the smaller surface features 38S collectively occupy is referred to herein as the “fill-fraction” of the smaller surface features 38S. In embodiments, the fill-fraction of the larger surface features 38L is 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 45% to 65%, 25% to 45%, 20% to 70%, and so on). In embodiment, the fill-fraction of the smaller surface features 38S is 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 45% to 65%, 25% to 45%, 20% to 70%, and so on)”; [0104], {the fill-faction is essentially the same metric as surface area as described in the instant application. Feng teaches that the fill-faction of features 38L and 38S may be greater than 20% but less than 70%. Therefore when n=4, 100%/n = 25%. Feng therefore teaches that the discrete distribution of heights 38 occupies a surface area percentage of the scattering region that is within 3% of 100%/n}),
at least two differences between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights are not equal to one another (see Fig. 2 in which the difference between heights 34 and 54b is not equal to the difference between heights 54b and 54a).
However, Feng fails to teach: the display article exhibits a specular reflectance spectrum comprising two or more local minima over a wavelength range of interest.
In a related patent in the field of anti-reflection displays Hart teaches in Fig. 1B and 20A: at least two differences between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights (“diffractive surface region 30a”; Fig. 1B, col 9 lines 6-7) are not equal to one another (see annotated Figure 1 below in which H1 = 0.11 in, H2 = 0.15 in, H3 = 0.22 in, and H4 = 0.33 in. It is clear that even with a rough estimate of heights, the differences between heights in the discrete distribution of heights are not equal to one another) such that the display article exhibits a specular reflectance spectrum comprising two or more local minima over a wavelength range of interest (see Fig. 20A in which “Multilayer AR (Comp. Ex. 5C)” displays two clear local minima over a wavelength rage of interest).
Furthermore, Hart teaches this configuration such that “the diffractive surface region, in some embodiments, can have a multimodal distribution (e.g., a bimodal distribution) of surface heights with a height and/or depth of from 120 to 200 nm, which can reduce specular reflectance through diffractive interference” (Hart, col 8 lines 33-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Feng to incorporate the teachings of Hart to provide a device in which at least two differences between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights are not equal to one another such that the display article exhibits a specular reflectance spectrum comprising two or more local minima over a wavelength range of interest, for the purpose of reducing specular reflectance through diffractive interference (Hart, col 8 lines 33-37).
PNG
media_image1.png
798
1246
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 1B of Hart
Regarding claim 2, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 1. As best understood, Feng further teaches in Fig. 2: the display article exhibits an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -15 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 60° (“Attempts have been made to reduce specular reflection off the substrate by texturing the reflecting surface of the substrate. The resulting surface is sometimes referred to as an “antiglare surface.” For example, sandblasting and liquid etching the surface of the substrate can texture the surface, which generally causes the surface to reflect ambient light diffusely rather than specularly. Diffuse reflection generally means that the surface still reflects the same ambient light but the texture of the reflecting surface scatters the light upon reflection. The more diffuse reflection interferes less with the ability of the user to seethe visible light that the display emits.”; [0005]).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above in claim 1 and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of “an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -15 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 60°.” See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In the instant case, the structure of Feng is essentially identical to that of the instant application. Therefore, the limitation of claim 2 is obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 2. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 2: n = 4 such that the discrete distribution of heights comprises a first height, a second height, a third height, and a fourth height (the heights measured from the base plane 30 include 34, 54b, 54a, and 28. Therefore, n=4.),
wherein a difference between the second height (54b) and the third height (54a) is less than half a difference between the first height (34) and the second height (54b) (based on annotated Figure 2 below, the difference between the second height and the third height (54a – 54b = 0.95cm) is less than half a difference between the first height and the second height (54b – 34 = 2.11cm)).
PNG
media_image2.png
927
1520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated Fig. 2 of Feng
Regarding claim 4, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 3. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 2: a difference between the fourth height (28) and the third height (54a) is within 5% of a difference between the first height (34) and the second height (54b) (see annotated Figure 2 above in which H28 – H54a = 1.97 cm and H54b – H34 = 2.11 cm. Therefore, the percent difference between the two values is 6.86%).
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a limitation such that “a difference between the fourth height and the third height is within 5% of a difference between the first height and the second height”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the instant case, Feng describes a variability in the displacements of the heights such that “In such embodiments, the intermediate mean elevation 54a can be less than the higher mean elevation 28 by a distance of 100 nm, 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, or 250 nm, or within any range bound by any two of those values (e.g., 100 nm to 250 nm, and so on). In addition, the lower mean elevation 34 is less than the higher mean elevation 28 by the distance 36 of 250 nm, 300 nm, 350 nm, 400 nm, 450 nm, or 500 nm, or within any range bound by any two of those values (e.g., 250 nm to 500 nm, and so on)” (Feng, [0106]). Feng sets forth a scenario such that the displacements of the heights are variable based on routine optimization of the optical component, therefore the limitation is anticipated.
Regarding claim 5, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 3. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 2: a difference between the first height (34) and the second height (54b) is greater than or equal 100 nm and less than or equal to 130 nm (estimated from Fig. 2 of Feng H54b – H34 ≈ 180nm) and a difference between the second height (54b) and the third height (54a) is greater than or equal to 25 nm and less than or equal to 35 nm (estimated from Fig. 2 of Feng H54a – H54b ≈ 80nm).
Although Feng does not explicitly state the ranges as claimed in claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a device such that “a difference between the first height and the second height is greater than or equal 100 nm and less than or equal to 130 nm and a difference between the second height and the third height is greater than or equal to 25 nm and less than or equal to 35 nm,” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In the instant case, Feng describes a variability in the displacements of the heights such that “In such embodiments, the intermediate mean elevation 54a can be less than the higher mean elevation 28 by a distance of 100 nm, 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, or 250 nm, or within any range bound by any two of those values (e.g., 100 nm to 250 nm, and so on). In addition, the lower mean elevation 34 is less than the higher mean elevation 28 by the distance 36 of 250 nm, 300 nm, 350 nm, 400 nm, 450 nm, or 500 nm, or within any range bound by any two of those values (e.g., 250 nm to 500 nm, and so on)” (Feng, [0106]). Feng sets forth a scenario such that the displacements of the heights are variable based on routine optimization of the optical component, therefore the limitation is anticipated.
Regarding claim 7, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 1. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 2: the scattering region scatters light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 5.0° over the wavelength range of interest (“the substrate 12 exhibits a transmission haze. As used herein, the terms “transmission haze” refers to the percentage of transmitted light scattered outside an angular cone of about ±2.5°”; [0132]).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above in claim 1 and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of “the scattering region scatters light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 5.0° over the wavelength range of interest.” See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In the instant case, the structure of Feng is essentially identical to that of the instant application. Therefore, the limitation of claim 7 is obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 1. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 3: one of the plurality of regions is completely surrounded by regions disposed at other heights in the discrete distribution of heights (see Fig. 3 in which each of the 4 unique regions are disposed at differing heights. Therefore each region is surrounded by regions disposed at different heights).
Regarding claim 9, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 1. Feng Further teaches: the wavelength range of interest is from λmin to λmax, wherein λmin is less than or equal to 420 and greater than or equal to 350 nm, wherein λmax is greater than or equal to 700 nm and less than or equal to 770 nm (“Transmission haze is a measure of how much the textured surface is diffusing the visible light that the display emitted upon transmitting through the substrate”; [0007]), wherein an average transmitted haze of the light incident on the first major surface is less than or equal to 8% over the wavelength range of interest (“In embodiments, the substrate 12 exhibits a transmission haze of 0.5%, 1.5%. 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, or 35%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 1.5% to 25%, and so on)”; [0132], see Fig. 16D examples 12A-D).
Nonetheless, Feng does not appear to explicitly disclose specific numerical values such that: “the wavelength range of interest is from λmin to λmax, wherein λmin is less than or equal to 420 and greater than or equal to 350 nm, wherein λmax is greater than or equal to 700 nm and less than or equal to 770 nm.”
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing /n re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Feng states the use of ‘visible light’ to measure the transmission haze in para [0007]. One of ordinary skill would only have to optimize the workable ranges of the visible spectrum to arrive at the range as claimed by the instant application.
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 Feng, in accordance with routine optimization or discovery of workable ranges, in order to achieve the desired transmission haze over the visible spectrum (Feng, [0007] and [0132]).
Regarding claim 10, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 1. Feng further teaches: wherein the article exhibits a sparkle that is less than or equal to 3% when measured at 140 ppi (“all PPD values, attributes and limits are calculated and evaluated with a test setup employing a display device having a pixel density of 140 pixels per inch (PPI). In embodiments, the display article 10 exhibits a PPD of 1.0%, 1.2% 2.0%, 2.25%, 2.5%, 2.75%, 3.0%, 3.25%, 3.5%, 3.75%, 4.0%, 4.25%, 4.5%, 4.75%, 5.0%, 5.25%, 5.5%, 5.75%, 6.0%, 7.0%, 8.0%, 9.0%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 2.0% to 6.0%, and so on)”; [0130], “Pixel power deviation, also referred to as “sparkle,””; [0007]).
Regarding claim 11, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 1. As best understood, Feng further teaches: a scattering amplitude of the scattering region at a scattering angle of less than 4° is less than 10-3 times a peak scattering amplitude at specular when the scattering amplitude is averaged over a wavelength range from 400 nm to 770 nm.
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above in claim 1 and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of “a scattering amplitude of the scattering region at a scattering angle of less than 4° is less than 10-3 times a peak scattering amplitude at specular when the scattering amplitude is averaged over a wavelength range from 400 nm to 770 nm” See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In the instant case, the structure of Feng is essentially identical to that of the instant application as seen by the rejections set forth in the structed identified in claim 1. Therefore, the limitation of claim 11 is an obvious function of the optical device.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Feng teaches in Fig. 1 and 3: a display article (“display article 10”; [0083], Fig. 1) comprising:
a first major surface (“primary surface 18”; [0084], Fig. 1);
a second major surface (“base-plane 30”; [0085], Fig. 3) opposing the first major surface(18, see Fig. 1 and 3); and
a scattering region (20) formed in the first major surface (“textured region 20 and parallel to the primary surface 18”; [0085], Fig. 3), wherein, within the scattering region (20), the first major surface (18) comprises:
a plurality of regions comprising a discrete distribution of heights (“surface features 38”; [0087], see Fig. 3) measured relative to an imaginary base plane (“base-plane 30”; [0091]) extending through the display article (10) and parallel to the first major surface (see Fig. 3A in which 18 is parallel to the base plane 30), wherein:
the discrete distribution of heights (38) comprises n heights, where n is an even integer greater than or equal to 4 (the heights measured from the base plane 30 include 34, 54b, 54a, and 28. Therefore, n=4.),
each height ni in the discrete distribution of heights (38) occupies a surface area percentage Ai of the scattering region, each value Ai is within 3% of 100%/n (“The percentage of the area of the cross-section that the larger surface features 38L collectively occupy is referred to herein as the “fill-fraction” of the larger surface features 38L. The percentage of the area of the cross-section that the smaller surface features 38S collectively occupy is referred to herein as the “fill-fraction” of the smaller surface features 38S. In embodiments, the fill-fraction of the larger surface features 38L is 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 45% to 65%, 25% to 45%, 20% to 70%, and so on). In embodiment, the fill-fraction of the smaller surface features 38S is 20%, 25%, 30%, 35%, 40%, 45%, 50%, 55%, 60%, 65%, 70%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 45% to 65%, 25% to 45%, 20% to 70%, and so on)”; [0104], {the fill-faction is essentially the same metric as surface area as described in the instant application. Feng teaches that the fill-faction of features 38L and 38S may be greater than 20% but less than 70%. Therefore when n=4, 100%/n = 25%. Feng therefore that the discrete distribution of heights 38 occupies a surface area percentage of the scattering region that is within 3% of 100%/n}), and
differences between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights follow a symmetric pattern about a center height difference of the discrete distribution of heights (see Fig. 3 in which the four heights 34, 54b, 54a, and 36 appear to be equally spaced heights. Therefore, the distance between adjacent heights are symmetric).
However, Feng fails to teach: the display article exhibits a specular reflectance spectrum comprising two or more local minima over a wavelength range of interest.
In a related patent in the field of anti-reflection displays Hart teaches in Fig. 1B and 20A: the display article exhibits a specular reflectance spectrum comprising two or more local minima over a wavelength range of interest (see Fig. 20A in which “Multilayer AR (Comp. Ex. 5C)” displays two clear local minima over a wavelength rage of interest).
Furthermore, Hart teaches this configuration such that “the diffractive surface region, in some embodiments, can have a multimodal distribution (e.g., a bimodal distribution) of surface heights with a height and/or depth of from 120 to 200 nm, which can reduce specular reflectance through diffractive interference” (Hart, col 8 lines 33-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Feng to incorporate the teachings of Hart to provide a device in which the display article exhibits a specular reflectance spectrum comprising two or more local minima over a wavelength range of interest, for the purpose of reducing specular reflectance through diffractive interference (Hart, col 8 lines 33-37).
Regarding claim 13, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 12. Feng further teaches in Fig. 2: at least two differences between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights are not equal to one another (see Fig. 2 in which the difference between heights 34 and 54b is not equal to the difference between heights 54b and 54a).
Regarding claim 14, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 12. Feng further teaches in Fig. 2: the center height difference is the smallest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights (see Fig. 2 in which the difference between heights 54b and 54a is the smallest), wherein the center height difference is greater than or equal to 10 nm and less than or equal to 80 nm (see Fig. 2 in which 54a – 54b ≈ 80 nm).
Additionally, see also the first paragraph MPEP 2144.05 which states “In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).”
Regarding claim 16, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 12. Feng further teaches in the embodiment of Fig. 7: the center height difference is not the greatest difference or the smallest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights (see Fig. 7 in which each height in the distribution of heights is equally spaced such that the center height difference is neither the greatest difference or smallest difference in the distribution of heights).
Feng further teaches this embodiment such that “Each surface feature can have a defined geometry, such as diameter and minimum center-to-center spacing. Thus, this approach provides the designer of the textured region with a variety of variables that can be manipulated (rather than just one variable in surface roughness) to optimize the antiglare metrics of the substrate” (Feng, [0011]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the embodiments of Feng provide a device in which the center height difference is not the greatest difference or the smallest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights, for the purpose of designing the surface features in order to optimize the antiglare metrics of the substrate (Feng, [0011]).
Regarding claim 17, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 16. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 2: n = 4 such that the discrete distribution of heights (38) comprises a first height, a second height, a third height, and a fourth height (the four heights measured from the base plane 30 include 34, 54b, 54a, and 28. Therefore, n=4).,
a difference between the first height (34) and the second height (54b) is greater than or equal to 100 nm and less than or equal to 130 nm (estimated from Fig. 2 of Feng H54b – H34 ≈ 180nm), and
a difference between the second height (54b) and the third height (54a) is greater than or equal to 20 nm and less than or equal to 40 nm (estimated from Fig. 2 of Feng H54a – H54b ≈ 80nm).
Although Feng does not explicitly state the ranges as claimed in claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a device such that “a difference between the first height and the second height is greater than or equal 100 nm and less than or equal to 130 nm and a difference between the second height and the third height is greater than or equal to 25 nm and less than or equal to 35 nm,” since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In the instant case, Feng describes a variability in the displacements of the heights such that “In such embodiments, the intermediate mean elevation 54a can be less than the higher mean elevation 28 by a distance of 100 nm, 125 nm, 150 nm, 175 nm, 200 nm, 225 nm, or 250 nm, or within any range bound by any two of those values (e.g., 100 nm to 250 nm, and so on). In addition, the lower mean elevation 34 is less than the higher mean elevation 28 by the distance 36 of 250 nm, 300 nm, 350 nm, 400 nm, 450 nm, or 500 nm, or within any range bound by any two of those values (e.g., 250 nm to 500 nm, and so on)” (Feng, [0106]). Feng sets forth a scenario such that the displacements of the heights are variable based on routine optimization of the optical component, therefore the limitation is anticipated.
Regarding claim 18, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 12. Feng Further teaches in Fig. 2: a difference between a greatest height (28) in the discrete distribution of heights and a second greatest height (54a) in the discrete distribution of heights is a greatest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights (see annotated Figure 2 above).
Feng does not numerically teach that a difference between a greatest height in the discrete distribution of heights is a greatest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights. See annotated Figure 2 in which the greatest difference in height is between height 54b and 34. However, the difference between the greatest difference in height and the second greatest difference in height is 6.86% (calculated form the values presented in Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a device such that a difference between a greatest height in the discrete distribution of heights is a greatest difference between adjacent heights in the discrete distribution of heights, since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art, but are merely close that one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985); MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 12. As best understood, Feng further teaches in Fig. 2: the display article exhibits an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -20 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 20° (“Attempts have been made to reduce specular reflection off the substrate by texturing the reflecting surface of the substrate. The resulting surface is sometimes referred to as an “antiglare surface.” For example, sandblasting and liquid etching the surface of the substrate can texture the surface, which generally causes the surface to reflect ambient light diffusely rather than specularly. Diffuse reflection generally means that the surface still reflects the same ambient light but the texture of the reflecting surface scatters the light upon reflection. The more diffuse reflection interferes less with the ability of the user to seethe visible light that the display emits.”; [0005]).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above in claim 12 and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of “an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -20 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 20°.” See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In the instant case, the structure of Feng is essentially identical to that of the instant application. Therefore, the limitation of claim 19 is obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Feng and Hart teach the display article of claim 19. As best understood, Feng further teaches in Fig. 2: the display article exhibits an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -20 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 60° (“Attempts have been made to reduce specular reflection off the substrate by texturing the reflecting surface of the substrate. The resulting surface is sometimes referred to as an “antiglare surface.” For example, sandblasting and liquid etching the surface of the substrate can texture the surface, which generally causes the surface to reflect ambient light diffusely rather than specularly. Diffuse reflection generally means that the surface still reflects the same ambient light but the texture of the reflecting surface scatters the light upon reflection. The more diffuse reflection interferes less with the ability of the user to seethe visible light that the display emits.”; [0005]).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above in claim 12 and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of “an average photopic specular reflectance reduction of at least -20 dB for light incident on the first major surface over a range of angles of incidence from 0° to 60°.” See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In the instant case, the structure of Feng is essentially identical to that of the instant application.
Feng further teaches: wherein the scattering region scatters light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 5.0° over the wavelength range of interest (“the substrate 12 exhibits a transmission haze. As used herein, the terms “transmission haze” refers to the percentage of transmitted light scattered outside an angular cone of about ±2.5°”; [0132]).
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above in claim 12 and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of “the scattering region scatters light in a far-field scattering pattern with a peak scattering angle that is less than or equal to 5.0° over the wavelength range of interest.” See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).” In the instant case, the structure of Feng is essentially identical to that of the instant application.
Feng further teaches: wherein the wavelength range of interest is from λmin to λmax, wherein λmin is less than or equal to 420 and greater than or equal to 350 nm, wherein λmax is greater than or equal to 700 nm and less than or equal to 770 nm (“Transmission haze is a measure of how much the textured surface is diffusing the visible light that the display emitted upon transmitting through the substrate”; [0007]).
Nonetheless, Feng does not appear to explicitly disclose specific numerical values such that: “the wavelength range of interest is from λmin to λmax, wherein λmin is less than or equal to 420 and greater than or equal to 350 nm, wherein λmax is greater than or equal to 700 nm and less than or equal to 770 nm.”
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing /n re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Feng states the use of ‘visible light’ to measure the transmission haze in para [0007]. One of ordinary skill would only have to optimize the workable ranges of the visible spectrum to arrive at the range as claimed by the instant application.
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 Feng, in accordance with routine optimization or discovery of workable ranges, in order to achieve the desired transmission haze over the visible spectrum (Feng, [0007] and [0132]).
Feng further teaches: wherein an average transmitted haze of the light incident on the first major surface is less than or equal to 8% over the wavelength range of interest (“In embodiments, the substrate 12 exhibits a transmission haze of 0.5%, 1.5%. 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, or 35%, or within any range bounded by any two of those values (e.g., 1.5% to 25%, and so on)”; [0132], see Fig. 16D examples 12A-D).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the closest prior art, Feng and Hart, teach the display article of claim 1. Feng and Hart fail to teach or otherwise suggest the limitations of claim 6: “n is greater than or equal to 8 such that the discrete distribution of heights comprises a first height, a second height, a third height, a fourth height, a fifth height, a sixth height, a seventh height, and an eight height, and a difference between the second height and the third height and a difference between the sixth height and the seventh height are the less than differences between other adjacent pairs of heights in the discrete distribution of heights, wherein at least one of a difference between the first height and the second height is greater than or equal to 90 nm and less than or equal to 110 nm a difference between the second height and the third height is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 15 nm,
a difference between the third height and the fourth height is greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 70 nm, an a difference between the fourth height and the fifth height, is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 90 nm.”
Based on the configuration of Feng it would be improper to modify Hart to provide a device in which “n is greater than or equal to 8 such that the discrete distribution of heights comprises a first height, a second height, a third height, a fourth height, a fifth height, a sixth height, a seventh height, and an eight height, and a difference between the second height and the third height and a difference between the sixth height and the seventh height are the less than differences between other adjacent pairs of heights in the discrete distribution of heights, wherein at least one of a difference between the first height and the second height is greater than or equal to 90 nm and less than or equal to 110 nm a difference between the second height and the third height is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 15 nm, a difference between the third height and the fourth height is greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 70 nm, an a difference between the fourth height and the fifth height, is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 90 nm.” Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Regarding claim 15, the closest prior art, Feng and Hart, teach the display article of claim 12. Feng and Hart fail to teach or otherwise suggest the limitations of claim 6: “n = 8 such that the discrete distribution of heights comprises a first height, a second height, a third height, a fourth height, a fifth height, a sixth height, a seventh height, and an eighth height, a difference between the first height and the second height is greater than or equal to 90 nm and less than or equal to 110 nm, a difference between the second height and the third height is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 15 nm, a difference between the third height and the fourth height is greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 70 nm, and a difference between the fourth height and the fifth height, is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 90 nm.”
Based on the configuration of Feng it would be improper to modify Hart to provide a device in which “n = 8 such that the discrete distribution of heights comprises a first height, a second height, a third height, a fourth height, a fifth height, a sixth height, a seventh height, and an eighth height, a difference between the first height and the second height is greater than or equal to 90 nm and less than or equal to 110 nm, a difference between the second height and the third height is greater than or equal to 5 nm and less than or equal to 15 nm, a difference between the third height and the fourth height is greater than or equal to 30 nm and less than or equal to 70 nm, and a difference between the fourth height and the fifth height, is greater than or equal to 50 nm and less than or equal to 90 nm.” Therefore, the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220011478 A1 – teaches to a configuration where n=4. The differences between heights are equidistant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571) 272-3689. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872