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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the 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 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kashiwagi (US 2018/0128959) in view of Satake et al. (US 2004/0209007), Ye et al. (US 11,796,716) and Tanabe et al. (US 2014/0078422).
As to claim 1, Kashiwagi discloses (see Fig. 8, 12): A light control film comprising: a louver film (232) including a plurality of light absorption patterns (234) arranged in parallel and a light transmitting portion (233) surrounding at least a portion of the plurality of light absorption patterns; a reflective polarizing film (228) adjusting an angle of a light transmitted to the louver film, wherein a difference between a first light refractive index of the light transmitting portion and a second refractive index of the plurality of light absorption patterns is 0.05 or more (see paragraphs [0063]-[0066] and [0136]), and wherein the plurality of light absorption patterns include a first side and a second side formed asymmetrically with each other (see Fig. 12).
Kashiwagi does not disclose a first adhesive layer disposed between the louver film and the reflective polarizing film. Satake discloses (see paragraph [0005]) that for adhesion between optical films and liquid crystal cells, and between optical films, each element usually is attached using pressure sensitive adhesives in order to reduce loss of light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure sensitive adhesive as a first adhesive layer disposed between the louver film and the reflective polarizing film in order to adhere the light diffuser layer (235) to the louver film (232) while reducing loss of light as taught by Satake.
Kashiwagi in view of Satake does not disclose wherein a third refractive index of the reflective polarizing film is larger than a fourth refractive index of the first adhesive layer. Ye discloses an optical film including organic crystals that have helical structures with refractive index higher than 1.9. Such optical films can be used to form high efficiency polarizers (e.g., reflective polarizers or diffractive polarizers). See column 2, lines 30-36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi by forming the reflective polarizing film using the optical film of Ye in order to achieve high efficiency. A pressure sensitive adhesive has a refractive index generally from 1.46 to 1.49, as evidenced by paragraph [0086] of Tanabe. Therefore, the refractive index of the modified reflective polarizing film (higher than 1.9), would be larger than the refractive index of the pressure sensitive adhesive (generally 1.46-1.49).
As to claim 2, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kashiwagi further discloses (see paragraph [0140] and Fig. 12) that the first side is inclined by a first angle (θ2>θ1) with respect to the reflective polarizing film and the second side is substantially perpendicular (θ1 = 0° to the normal) to the reflective polarizing film.
As to claim 3, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 2. Kashiwagi further discloses (see paragraphs [0139] and [0140] and Fig. 12) that the first angle is 3.5° to 5° (0°<θ2<5°, additionally Fig. 19 discloses θ2=3.4°).
As to claim 4, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kashiwagi further discloses that the reflective polarizing film is configured to transmit the light in a specified angle range and reflect the light exceeding the specified angle (due to total internal reflection on the light-exit surface).
As to claim 5, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kashiwagi further discloses (see Fig. 8) that the plurality of light absorption patterns (234) are arranged along a first direction, but does not disclose that the transmission axis of the reflective polarizing film (228) is formed along the first direction. However, it was a standard configuration to arrange the transmission axis of the reflective polarizing film along the first direction or orthogonal to the first direction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi by arranging the transmission axis of the reflective polarizing film (228) along the first direction because it was one of two standard configurations, and would therefore have been “obvious to try”. See MPEP 2143, Section I, Rationale E: Choosing From a Finite Number of Identified, Predictable Solutions, With a Reasonable Expectation of Success.
As to claim 6, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kashiwagi further discloses (see Fig. 9) that the light control film further comprises: a first base film (231) disposed on the louver film; and a matte layer (rough surface layer on the base film, see paragraph [0131]) including a plurality of protrusions disposed on the first base film.
As to claim 7, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 6. Kashiwagi further discloses (see Fig. 9) that at least some of the plurality of protrusions are formed in an irregular shape with a curved surface (implicit for a roughened surface).
As to claim 8, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 6. Kashiwagi further discloses (see Fig. 9, 12) that the plurality of light absorption patterns include a lower surface facing the first adhesive layer and an upper surface facing opposite to the lower surface and wherein the upper surface is spaced apart form the first base film.
As to claim 9, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Kashiwagi further discloses (see Fig. 8, 9) a second base film (226) disposed below the reflective polarizing film. Kashiwagi does not disclose a second adhesive layer being disposed between the reflective polarizing film and the second base film. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiwagi by providing a second adhesive layer being disposed between the reflective polarizing film and the second base film in order to adhere the prism layer (227) to the reflective polarizing film while reducing loss of light as taught by Satake.
As to claim 10, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 9, but does not disclose a coating layer disposed below the second base film (226). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kashiwagi by providing an adhesive layer between the second base film (226) and the light guide plate (222) in order to adhere the light guide plate to the second base film while reducing loss of light as taught by Satake. The adhesive layer between the second base film and the light guide plate can be considered a coating layer.
As to claim 12, Kashiwagi in view of Satake, Ye and Tanabe discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Furthermore, the first adhesive layer would be attached to the lower surface of the plurality of light absorption patterns (234) and a back surface of the transmission layer (233).
As to claim 13, Kashiwagi discloses (see Fig. 8, 12): A backlight unit comprising: a light source (225); a light control film comprising a louver film (232) including a plurality of light absorption patterns (234) arranged in parallel and a light transmitting portion (233) surrounding at least a portion of the plurality of light absorption patterns; a reflective polarizing film (228) adjusting an angle of a light transmitted to the louver film, wherein a difference between a first light refractive index of the light transmitting portion and a second refractive index of the plurality of light absorption patterns is 0.05 or more (see paragraphs [0063]-[0066] and [0136]), and wherein the plurality of light absorption patterns include a first side and a second side formed asymmetrically with each other (see Fig. 12); and a light guide plate (222) for transmitting a light incident from the light source (225) to the light control film.
Kashiwagi does not disclose a first adhesive layer disposed between the louver film and the reflective polarizing film. Satake discloses (see paragraph [0005]) that for adhesion between optical films and liquid crystal cells, and between optical films, each element usually is attached using pressure sensitive adhesives in order to reduce loss of light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure sensitive adhesive as a first adhesive layer disposed between the louver film and the reflective polarizing film in order to adhere the light diffuser layer (235) to the louver film (232) while reducing loss of light as taught by Satake.
Kashiwagi in view of Satake does not disclose wherein a third refractive index of the reflective polarizing film is larger than a fourth refractive index of the first adhesive layer. Ye discloses an optical film including organic crystals that have helical structures with refractive index higher than 1.9. Such optical films can be used to form high efficiency polarizers (e.g., reflective polarizers or diffractive polarizers). See column 2, lines 30-36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi by forming the reflective polarizing film using the optical film of Ye in order to achieve high efficiency. A pressure sensitive adhesive has a refractive index generally from 1.46 to 1.49, as evidenced by paragraph [0086] of Tanabe. Therefore, the refractive index of the modified reflective polarizing film (higher than 1.9), would be larger than the refractive index of the pressure sensitive adhesive (generally 1.46-1.49).
As to claim 14, Kashiwagi discloses (see Fig. 8, 12): A display device (210) comprising: a liquid crystal panel (215); and a backlight unit comprising a light source (225) and a light control film and a light guide plate (222) for transmitting a light incident from the light source (225) to the light control film, wherein the light control film comprising a louver film (232) including a plurality of light absorption patterns (234) arranged in parallel and a light transmitting portion (233) surrounding at least a portion of the plurality of light absorption patterns; a reflective polarizing film (228) adjusting an angle of a light transmitted to the louver film, wherein a difference between a first light refractive index of the light transmitting portion and a second refractive index of the plurality of light absorption patterns is 0.05 or more (see paragraphs [0063]-[0066] and [0136]), and wherein the plurality of light absorption patterns include a first side and a second side formed asymmetrically with each other (see Fig. 12); and a light guide plate (222) for transmitting a light incident from the light source (225) to the light control film.
Kashiwagi does not disclose a first adhesive layer disposed between the louver film and the reflective polarizing film. Satake discloses (see paragraph [0005]) that for adhesion between optical films and liquid crystal cells, and between optical films, each element usually is attached using pressure sensitive adhesives in order to reduce loss of light. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pressure sensitive adhesive as a first adhesive layer disposed between the louver film and the reflective polarizing film in order to adhere the light diffuser layer (235) to the louver film (232) while reducing loss of light as taught by Satake.
Kashiwagi in view of Satake does not disclose wherein a third refractive index of the reflective polarizing film is larger than a fourth refractive index of the first adhesive layer. Ye discloses an optical film including organic crystals that have helical structures with refractive index higher than 1.9. Such optical films can be used to form high efficiency polarizers (e.g., reflective polarizers or diffractive polarizers). See column 2, lines 30-36. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kashiwagi by forming the reflective polarizing film using the optical film of Ye in order to achieve high efficiency. A pressure sensitive adhesive has a refractive index generally from 1.46 to 1.49, as evidenced by paragraph [0086] of Tanabe. Therefore, the refractive index of the modified reflective polarizing film (higher than 1.9), would be larger than the refractive index of the pressure sensitive adhesive (generally 1.46-1.49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 13 and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The new ground of rejection relies in part on the newly cited prior art of Ye et al. (US 11,796,716) and Tanabe et al. (US 2014/0078422).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 at (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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2871