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 .
Remark
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on March 27, 2026 , which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claims 1 and 12.
Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the light shielding portions are made of high-haze-value material with high light scattering performance”. The specification fails to provide a workable example to enable the high-haze-value material with high light scattering performance.
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.
Claims 1-20 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 1 has been amended to include the phrase “the light shielding portions are made of high-haze-value material with high light scattering performance” that is confusing and indefinite since it is not how to definitely define “high-haze-value” and how to definitely define “high light scattering performance”. These make the scopes of the claims unclear.
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) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Kim et al (US 2018/0341130 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Bookbinder et al (US 2018/0045863 A1).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
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).
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “wherein the light-shielding portions are made of a high-haze-value material with high light scattering performance”.
This reference does not teach explicitly that light shielding portion are made of high haze value material with high light scattering performance. Bookbinder et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a microlouvers for an optical assembly that may be formed with a plurality of light shielding portions or microlouvers (12, Figures 4, 11, 15) each with a plurality of damage tracks (12-1) that provide high light scattering performance and therefore gives up high haze value, (please see equation 4, paragraphs [0061]-[0068]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Bookbinder et al to alternatively make the light shielding portions made with high light scattering material with high haze value for the benefit of using different art well-known material to make the light shielding portions.
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).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al and Bookbinder et al as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of the US patent application by Kim (US 2009/0165943 A1).
The viewing angle controlling film taught by Kim et al (‘130) in combination with the teachings of Bookbinder et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 5, these references do 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) 12-16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al and Bookbinder et al as described in claim 1 above and further in view of the US patent application by Hamano (US 2021/0003858 A1).
Claim 12 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
The viewing angle controlling film taught by Kim et al in combination with the teachings of Bookbinder et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to amended 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.
Claim 12 has been amended to include the phrase “an effective negative refractive index planar lens” and the phrase “wherein the effective negative effective index planar lens comprises two layers of optical waveguide arrays that are periodically distributed and are orthogonal with each other and is used for a two-dimensional light source or a three-dimensional light source to form a floating real image”. These references also do not teach these explicitly.
Hamano in the same field of endeavor teaches an optical image forming device that is comprised of a light direction regulating member (12, Figures 1 and 2) that function as the view field control apparatus and an aerial image forming element (13, Figure 1) that may comprise an effective negative refractive index planar lens that is comprised of two layers of optical waveguide arrays (102, Figure 7) that are periodically distributed and are orthogonal with each other and is used for a two-dimensional light source or a three-dimensional light source to form a floating real image, (please see Figure 7).
It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Hamano to modify the view field control apparatus to be utilized with an aerial image forming element served as the effective negative refractive index lens to form an optical image forming device that provide aerial image.
With regard to claim 13, Kim et al (‘130) in view of Hamano teaches that the view field control apparatus may be disposed away from or close to the display. Although these references do not teach explicitly that the view field control apparatus is disposed on a surface of the planar lens, such modification considered to be obvious matters of design choice to one skilled in the art for the benefit of allowing the aerial image to be produced at desired location.
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 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]).
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al, Bookbinder et al and Hamano as described in claims 1 and 12 above and further in view of the US patent application by Kim (US 2009/0165943 A1).
The viewing angle controlling film taught by Kim et al in combination with the teachings of Bookbinder et al and Hamano as described in claims 1 and 12 above has met all the limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 17, these references do not teach explicitly that the plurality of light-shielding portions extends obliquely in a thickness direction of the base body. Kim (‘493) in the same field of endeavor teaches a light control film that includes a plurality of light-shielding portion (14, Figures 1 and 2) that is extended obliquely in the thickness direction of the base body (17). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Kim (‘493) to make the light shielding portions to extends obliquely in the thickness direction for the benefit of making the light control film or the view field control apparatus to specifically direct the incident to a desired direction.
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]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended claims that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection stated above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights