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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Kim et al (US 2018/0341130 A1).
Kim et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a viewing angle controlling film that serves as the view field control apparatus wherein the view field control apparatus is comprised of a base body (20, Figure 1 and 110, Figures 3A, 3B and 6), that is light transmittable and a plurality of light shielding portions (25, 120 and/or 160) disposed in the base body and parallel to each other, the plurality of light-shielding portions being sequentially disposed in a first direction of the base body and at least two adjacent light shielding portions in the plurality of the light-shielding portions being spaced apart from each other to form a light-transmittable regions between the two adjacent light-shielding portions, (please see Figures 1, 3A and 3B).
This reference does not teach explicitly that the view field control apparatus is in an optical imaging system, however this feature is in preamble that does not affect the body of the claims. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With regard to claim 2, Kim et al teaches that the view field control apparatus comprises a plurality of grooves (111, Figures 3A, 3B and 6) that serves as the plurality of mounting portions for mounting the plurality of light-shielding portions that is provided in the base body. The plurality of shielding portions (120 and 160) corresponding to the plurality of grooves (111) in a one-to-one correspondence fashion.
With regard to claim 3, Kim et al teaches that the plurality of mounting portions is configured as a mounting groove (111, Figures 3A, 3B and 6) and the mounting groove extending in a thickness direction of the base body.
With regard to claim 4, Kim et al teaches that the plurality of light-shielding portions is perpendicular to the base body in a thickness direction of the base body, (please see Figures 1, 3A, 3B and 6).
With regard to claim 6, Kim et al teaches that base body (20 or 110) has a first surfaced and a second surface that are opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the base body. As shown in Figures 3A, 3B and 6, the apparatus further comprises a first protecting sheet or protective portion (140) that is light-transmittable and is disposed on the first surface and a second protecting sheet or protective portion (130) that is light transmittable and is disposed on the second surface, (please see paragraph [0044]).
With regard to claim 7, Kim et al teaches that the plurality of light-shielding portion (120 and 160) is configured as a non-light transmittable structure. Kim et al teaches that the light transmittance conversion portion would be opaque when illuminated by the viewing angle controlling light (200, please see paragraph [0066]).
With regard to claim 8, Kim et al teaches the apparatus further comprises a backlight source (200 and 300, Figures 3A, 3B and 6) that configured to selectively illuminate the plurality of light-shielding portions to switch the plurality of light-shielding portions between a light-shielding state or opaque state and a non-light-shielding state or transparent state. Particularly when the viewing angle controlling backlight (200) is off the light-shielding portion (120) becomes a non-light-shielding state or transparent state and when the viewing angle controlling backlight (200) is on the light shielding portion (120) becomes light-shielding state or opaque state. Switching between the light shielding and non-light shielding states therefore can be achieved, (please see paragraphs [0066]).
With regard to claim 9, Kim et al teaches that view field control apparatus further comprises a light guide plate (310, Figure 6) configured to guide light emitted by the backlight source (200 and 300) to the plurality of light-shielding portions.
With regard to claim 10, Kim et al teaches at least one of the plurality of light-shielding portion comprises a first light-shielding portion (160 or 121, Figures 5A and 5B) and a second light shielding portion (120 or 122) that are stacked in the thickness direction of the base body and the backlight source comprises a first backlight source and a second backlight source (200 and 300) that each selectively illuminates the first light-shielding portion and the second light shielding portion.
With regard to claim 11, Kim et al teaches that view field control apparatus further comprises a light guide plate (310, Figure 6) configured to guide light emitted by the backlight source (200 and 300) to the plurality of light-shielding portions and correspond to the backlight sources the first backlight source and the second backlight source are disposed radially outside the light guide plate, (please see Figure 6).
This reference has therefore anticipated the claims.
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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al and in view of the US patent application by Kim (US 2009/0165943 A1).
The viewing angle controlling film taught by Kim et al (‘130) as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 5, this reference does not teach that the plurality of the light-shielding portions extends obliquely in a thickness direction of the base body. Kim (‘943) in the same field of endeavor teaches a light control film (10, Figure 1, or 40, Figure 2) wherein the light shielding portions or the lover elements (15) are extended obliquely in a thickness direction of the base body (17, please see paragraph [0029]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kim (‘943) to modify the light-shielding portions of Kim et al (‘130) to alternatively disposed obliquely in the thickness direction of the base body for the benefit of making the viewing angle control film to have a desired viewing field control property.
Claim(s) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al and in view of the US patent application by Kim (US 2009/0165943 A1).
The viewing angle controlling film taught by Kim et al (‘130) as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 12, Kim et al (‘130) teaches the viewing angle controlling film may be applied in a display or imaging optical system that is further comprises a display panel (400, Figures 3A, 3B and 6). However, it does not teach to include a planar lens with the viewing angle controlling film disposed in the planar lens and/or display.
Kim (‘943) in the same field of endeavor teaches an imaging system that is comprised of a planar lens (40, Figure 2) and a liquid crystal display panel (32) serves as the display panel configured to emit light towards the planar lens and a light control film (40) serves as the view field control apparatus that is disposed in the planar lens and the light emitted by the emitted by the display towards the planar lens passes through the view field control apparatus (40). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kim (‘943) to modify the display optical apparatus to have a planar lens with the view field control apparatus disposed within for the benefit of making the display or imaging optical system to have an alternative design.
With regard to claim 13, Kim et al (‘130) in view of Kim (‘943) teaches that the view field control apparatus is applied within the planar lens elements (14a and 14b, Figure 2, Kim ‘943) that may be either away from or close to the display (32).
With regard to claim 14, Kim et al (‘130) teaches that the view field control apparatus comprises a plurality of grooves (111, Figures 3A, 3B and 6) that serves as the plurality of mounting portions for mounting the plurality of light-shielding portions (120 and/or 160) that is provided in the base body. The plurality of shielding portions (120 and/or 160) corresponding to the plurality of grooves (111) in a one-to-one correspondence fashion.
With regard to claim 15, Kim et al (‘130) teaches that the plurality of mounting portions is configured as a mounting groove (111, Figures 3A, 3B and 6) and the mounting groove extending in a thickness direction of the base body.
With regard to claim 16, Kim et al (‘130) teaches that the plurality of light-shielding portions is perpendicular to the base body in a thickness direction of the base body, (please see Figures 1, 3A, 3B and 6).
With regard to claim 17, Kim (‘493) teaches that the plurality of light-shielding portion (14, Figures 1 and 2) extends obliquely in the thickness direction of the base body (17).
With regard to claim 18, Kim et al (‘130) teaches that base body (20 or 110) has a first surfaced and a second surface that are opposite to each other in a thickness direction of the base body. As shown in Figures 3A, 3B and 6, the apparatus further comprises a first protecting sheet or protective portion (140) that is light-transmittable and is disposed on the first surface and a second protecting sheet or protective portion (130) that is light transmittable and is disposed on the second surface, (please see paragraph [0044]).
With regard to claim 19, Kim et al (‘130) teaches that the plurality of light-shielding portion (120 and 160) is configured as a non-light transmittable structure. Kim et al teaches that the light transmittance conversion portion would be opaque when illuminated by the viewing angle controlling light (200, please see paragraph [0066]).
With regard to claim 20, Kim et al (‘493) teaches the apparatus further comprises a backlight source (200 and 300, Figures 3A, 3B and 6) that configured to selectively illuminate the plurality of light-shielding portions to switch the plurality of light-shielding portions between a light-shielding state or opaque state and a non-light-shielding state or transparent state. Particularly when the viewing angle controlling backlight (200) is off the light-shielding portion (120) becomes a non-light-shielding state or transparent state and when the viewing angle controlling backlight (200) is on the light shielding portion (120) becomes light-shielding state or opaque state. Switching between the light shielding and non-light shielding states therefore can be achieved, (please see paragraphs [0066]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872