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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because in figures 1A and 1B “Unpolorized Light Sources” is spelled incorrectly. The examiner suggests changing both occurrences to “Unpolarized Light Sources”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “124” (Fig. 1A), “Rp” (Figs. 1A and 1B), “Rs” (Figs. 1A and 1B), “Rp0” (Figs. 6B and 6C), “Tp0” (Figs. 6B and 6C), and “1020” (Fig. 10C).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “962” (paragraph [0065], micro-LED array 962).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “952” has been used to designate both the peelable skin layer (Fig. 9A) and the micro-LED array (Fig. 9B).
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the abstract, the examiner suggests that “fLCoS” should be spelled out prior to its first use in the disclosure. The examiner suggests that it be changed to “ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon (fLCoS)”.
The examiner acknowledges that fLCoS is a standard abbreviation for ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon and thus does not deem the suggested addition as new matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “fLCoS” should be spelled out prior to its first use in the claims. The examiner suggests that it be changed to “ferroelectric liquid crystal on silicon (fLCoS)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant should choose a single format for the refractive indices nx(1), ny(1), nx(2), and ny(2). Currently these are also represented in the claims as n1x, n1y, n2x, and n2y. Either format is acceptable, however, a single format should be used throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 11 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.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “the total thickness”, “the height”, and “the semiconductor component of LED” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner suggests that “the total thickness” be changed to “a total thickness” and “the height” be changed to “a height”. However, claim 1, from which claim 10 depends, does not require the light source to be an LED. Thus, for purposes of examination, “the semiconductor component of LED” will be interpreted as “the light source” unless and until the claim is amended to specify that the light source is an LED.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations “the spectral bandwidth”, “the LED”, “the center wavelength of LED” and “the center wavelength of the reflective polarizer” lack sufficient antecedent basis in the claim. The examiner suggests that “the spectral bandwidth” and “the center wavelength” be changed to “a spectral bandwidth” and “a center wavelength”. However, claim 1, from which claim 11 depends, does not require the light source to be an LED. Thus, for purposes of examination, “the LED” will be interpreted as “the light source” and “the center wavelength of LED” will be interpreted as “a center wavelength of the light source” unless and until the claim is amended to specify that the light source is an LED.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wheatley et al. (US 2006/0091412) (hereafter Wheatley).
Regarding claim 1, Wheatley discloses a lighting assembly comprising: a light source (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0022], where LED die 32 is a light source); and a reflective polarizer overlapping the light source (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0022], where 36 is a reflective polarizer), wherein a portion of light that is incident on the reflective polarizer does not pass through the reflective polarizer and is reflected back to the light source (see at least paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 2, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley also discloses an optical element disposed between the light source and the reflective polarizer, wherein: the optical element is coupled to the light source; and the optical element is covered by the reflective polarizer (see at least Fig. 3 and paragraph [0022], where quarter wave plate 38 is an optical element).
Regarding claim 3, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley also discloses that the light reflected back to the light source is re-absorbed by the light source; and in response to re-absorbing the light, the light source re-emits light toward the reflective polarizer (see at least paragraph [0022] and the abstract, where light reflected back into the LED is recycled).
Regarding claim 4, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley also discloses that the light source comprises at least one of a light emitting diode (LED), a micro-LED, an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a micro-OLED, a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS), or an fLCoS light source (see at least the abstract, where the light source is an LED).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouderkirk et al. (US 2004/0150997) (hereafter Ouderkirk) and US 5,882,774 (to Jonza et al.) which is incorporated by reference (see paragraph [0089] of Ouderkirk).
Regarding claim 1, Ouderkirk discloses a lighting assembly comprising: a light source (see at least Figs. 13-16 and paragraphs [0091]-[0098], where each device comprises an LED light source (212, 312, 412, and 512)); and a reflective polarizer overlapping the light source (see at least Figs. 13-16 and paragraphs [0091]-[0098], where each device comprises a reflective polarizer (250, 350, 450, and 550)), wherein a portion of light that is incident on the reflective polarizer does not pass through the reflective polarizer and is reflected back to the light source (see at least paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 2, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses an optical element disposed between the light source and the reflective polarizer, wherein: the optical element is coupled to the light source; and the optical element is covered by the reflective polarizer (see at least Figs. 13-16 and paragraphs [0091]-[0098], where the layer of phosphor (222, 322, 422, and 522) or the optically transparent material that can form a lens (220) can be the optical element).
Regarding claim 3, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the light reflected back to the light source is re-absorbed by the light source; and in response to re-absorbing the light, the light source re-emits light toward the reflective polarizer (see at least paragraph [0086] and the abstract, where light reflected back into the LED is recycled).
Regarding claim 4, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the light source comprises at least one of a light emitting diode (LED), a micro-LED, an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a micro-OLED, a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS), or an fLCoS light source (see at least paragraphs [0091]-[0098], where the light sources are LEDs).
Regarding claim 5¸ Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the reflective polarizer comprises a thin polymer reflective polarizer (see at least paragraph [0089], where the reflective polarizer comprises polymeric layers).
Regarding claim 6, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the thin polymer reflective polarizer comprises a polymer birefringent multilayer structure (see at least paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the birefringent multilayer structure comprises alternating first and second layers; the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n1x and n1y and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n2x and n2y; n1x = n1y and n2x < n2y or n2y < n2x; and n1x < 1.8, n1y < 1.8, |n1x-n1y| < 0.1, n2y > 1.5, and |n2x-n2y|> 0.05 and that |n2x-n2y|> 0.1 (see figs. 1a and 1b of US 5,882,774, which is incorporated by reference, where n1x=n1y=1.64, n2x=1.64, and n2y=1.88).
Claims 1, 4-6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Watson et al. (US 2007/0242198) (hereafter Watson).
Regarding claim 1, Watson discloses a lighting assembly comprising: a light source (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0019], where backlight 18 is a light source); and a reflective polarizer overlapping the light source (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0019] and [0022], where back polarizer 16 is a reflective polarizer), wherein a portion of light that is incident on the reflective polarizer does not pass through the reflective polarizer and is reflected back to the light source (see at least paragraph [0022]
Regarding claim 4, Watson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watson also discloses that the light source comprises at least one of a light emitting diode (LED), a micro-LED, an organic light emitting diode (OLED), a micro-OLED, a liquid crystal on silicon (LCoS), or an fLCoS light source (see at least paragraph [0012], where the backlight includes multiple LED light sources).
Regarding claim 5¸ Watson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watson also discloses that the reflective polarizer comprises a thin polymer reflective polarizer (see at least paragraph [0022], where the reflective polarizer has a polymeric multilayer design).
Regarding claim 6, Watson discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Watson also discloses that the thin polymer reflective polarizer comprises a polymer birefringent multilayer structure (see at least paragraph [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Watson discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Watson also discloses that the light source includes a group of 2 to 6 LEDs, and each LED emits at least one of a red, green, or blue spectrum light (see at least paragraph [0032], where the back light includes three different types of LED sources, blue, green, and red).
Regarding claim 15, Watson discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Watson also discloses that the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth is broadband and covers at least the sum of the LED group within a visible spectrum of about 400 to 720 nm (see at least paragraphs [0024] and [0032], where the reflective polarizer transmits light from the backlight, which comprises blue, green, and red LEDs).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jonza et al. (US 5,882,774) (hereafter Jonza).
Regarding claim 19, Jonza discloses a method comprising: forming a reflective polarizer by forming an alternating stack of at least one first polymer layer having a first birefringence and at least one second polymer layer having a second birefringence that is different than the first birefringence (see at least Col. 10, lines 9-16); and forming an adhesive layer on at least one surface of the reflective polarizer (see at least Col. 16, lines 18-37).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US 2006/0091412) (hereafter Wheatley) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (US 2013/0100530) (hereafter Weber).
Regarding claims 5-8, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley also discloses that the reflective polarizer is a birefringent multilayer polarizer (see at least paragraph [0021]).
Wheatley does not specifically disclose that the reflective polarizer comprises a thin polymer reflective polarizer, that the thin polymer reflective polarizer comprises a polymer birefringent multilayer structure, that the birefringent multilayer structure comprises alternating first and second layers; the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n1x and n1y and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n2x and n2y; n1x = n1y and n2x < n2y or n2y < n2x; and n1x < 1.8, n1y < 1.8, |n1x-n1y| < 0.1, n2y > 1.5, and |n2x-n2y|> 0.05 and that |n2x-n2y|> 0.1.
However, Weber teaches an optical stack of alternating polymeric birefringent layers that can be used as a multilayer reflective polarizer (see at least the abstract), wherein the reflective polarizer comprises a thin polymer reflective polarizer (see at least the abstract), wherein the thin polymer reflective polarizer comprises a polymer birefringent multilayer structure (see at least the abstract and fig. 4), that the birefringent multilayer structure comprises alternating first and second layers (see at least the abstract and fig. 4); the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n1x and n1y and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n2x and n2y; n1x = n1y and n2x < n2y or n2y < n2x; and n1x < 1.8, n1y < 1.8, |n1x-n1y| < 0.1, n2y > 1.5, and |n2x-n2y|> 0.05 and that |n2x-n2y|> 0.1 (see at least Fig. 4, where the first layers are sPS and the second layers are CoPENa and n1x=n1y=1.620, n2x = 1.507, n2y=1.620, and |n2x-n2y|=0.113).
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 the assembly of Wheatley to include the teachings of Weber so that the reflective polarizer comprises a thin polymer reflective polarizer, that the thin polymer reflective polarizer comprises a polymer birefringent multilayer structure, that the birefringent multilayer structure comprises alternating first and second layers; the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n1x and n1y and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices n2x and n2y; n1x = n1y and n2x < n2y or n2y < n2x; and n1x < 1.8, n1y < 1.8, |n1x-n1y| < 0.1, n2y > 1.5, and |n2x-n2y|> 0.05 and that |n2x-n2y|> 0.1 for the purpose of substituting one multilayer birefringent reflective polarizer for another in order to obtain predictable results such as maximizing desired reflectivity, maximizing transmittance of the desired polarization state, and minimizing undesirable reflectivity (see at least paragraph [0024] of Weber).
Regarding claim 9, Wheatley as modified by Weber discloses all of the limitations of claim 6.
Wheatley as modified by Weber does not specifically disclose that the birefringent multilayer structure has an average reflection of less than approximately 1% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a pass direction, and an average reflection of at least approximately 90% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a block direction.
However, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the birefringent multilayer structure having an average reflection of less than approximately 1% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a pass direction, and an average reflection of at least approximately 90% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a block direction include maximizing desired reflectivity, maximizing transmittance of the desired polarization state, and minimizing undesirable reflectivity (see at least paragraph [0024] of Weber).
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 the assembly of Wheatley as modified by Weber so that the birefringent multilayer structure has an average reflection of less than approximately 1% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a pass direction, and an average reflection of at least approximately 90% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a block direction for the purpose of maximizing desired reflectivity, maximizing transmittance of the desired polarization state, and minimizing undesirable reflectivity (see at least paragraph [0024] of Weber).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US 2006/0091412) (hereafter Wheatley) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley does not specifically disclose that the total thickness of the reflective polarizer is <0.5 h, where h is the height of the semiconductor component of LED.
However, Wheatley illustrates the reflective polarizer being much thinner than the LED die (see at least fig. 3, where reflective polarizer 36 is shown to be much thinner than the LED die 32).
Additionally, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the total thickness of the reflective polarizer being <0.5 h, where h is the height of the semiconductor component of LED include making the light assembly more compact and reducing weight.
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 the assembly of Wheatley so that the total thickness of the reflective polarizer is <0.5 h, where h is the height of the semiconductor component of LED for the purpose of making the light assembly more compact and reducing weight.
Regarding claim 12, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley does not specifically disclose that the reflective polarizer reflects above 90% of one of s- or p- polarized light while transmitting at least 85% of the other of s- or p- polarized light.
However, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the reflective polarizer reflecting above 90% of one of s- or p- polarized light while transmitting at least 85% of the other of s- or p- polarized light include optimizing the polarization function of the reflective polarizer (see at least paragraph [0022]).
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 the assembly of Wheatley so that the reflective polarizer reflects above 90% of one of s- or p- polarized light while transmitting at least 85% of the other of s- or p- polarized light for the purpose of optimizing the polarization function of the reflective polarizer (see at least paragraph [0022]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (US 2004/0150997) (hereafter Ouderkirk) and US 5,882,774 (to Jonza et al.) which is incorporated by reference (see paragraph [0089] of Ouderkirk) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth is at least 1.1 times larger than the spectral bandwidth of the LED but not larger than twice such bandwidth and the center wavelength of LED emission matches the center wavelength of the reflective polarizer.
However, Ouderkirk discloses that high reflectivity can be achieved over a wide bandwidth by adjusting the alternation of layers (see at least paragraph [0089], where a center wavelength is inherent to any given bandwidth).
However, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth being at least 1.1 times larger than the spectral bandwidth of the LED but not larger than twice such bandwidth and the center wavelength of LED emission matching the center wavelength of the reflective polarizer include ensuring optimal operation of the reflective polarizer with the light source.
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 the assembly of Ouderkirk so that the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth is at least 1.1 times larger than the spectral bandwidth of the LED but not larger than twice such bandwidth and the center wavelength of LED emission matches the center wavelength of the reflective polarizer for the purpose of ensuring optimal operation of the reflective polarizer with the light source.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US 2006/0091412) (hereafter Wheatley) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (US 2019/0064516) (hereafter Wagner) and Zhang et al. (“A Sacrificial Layer Strategy for Photolithography on Highly Hydrophobic surface and its application for electrowetting devices”, 2017) (hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 13, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley does not specifically disclose a sacrificial layer disposed directly over the reflective polarizer, wherein the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety having a surface energy of less than approximately 38 dyne/cm.
However, Wagner teaches a display device comprising a reflective polarizer and a sacrificial layer (paragraph [0009]).
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 the assembly of Wheatley to include the teachings of Wagner so that the assembly comprises a sacrificial layer disposed directly over the reflective polarizer for the purpose of protecting the reflective polarizer during processing (see at least paragraph [0083]).
Wheatley as modified by Wagner does not specifically disclose that the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety having a surface energy of less than approximately 38 dyne/cm.
However, Zhang teaches a sacrificial layer having a low surface energy, wherein the low surface energy makes the layer highly hydrophobic (see at least page 1).
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 the assembly of Wheatley as modified by Wagner to include the teachings of Zhang so that the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety having a low surface energy for the purpose of providing protection from moisture.
Wheatley as modified by Wagner and Zhang does not specifically disclose that the surface energy is less than approximately 38 dyne/cm.
However, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the surface energy being less than approximately 38 dyne/cm include making the sacrificial layer highly hydrophobic, thus protecting it and the underlying layers from moisture.
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 the assembly of Wheatley as modified by Wagner and Zhang so that the surface energy is less than approximately 38 dyne/cm for the purpose of making the sacrificial layer highly hydrophobic, thus protecting it and the underlying layers from moisture.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US 2006/0091412) (hereafter Wheatley) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2018/0234675) (hereafter Cheng).
Regarding claim 14, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley also discloses that the LED can emit visible light (see at least paragraph [0029]).
Wheatley does not specifically disclose that the light source includes a group of 2 to 6 LEDs; and each LED emits at least one of a red, green, or blue spectrum light.
However, Cheng teaches a display device comprising an LED light source that includes a group of 6 LEDs and each LED emits at least one of a red, green, or blue spectrum light (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0025], where the projector includes two red LEDs, two green LEDs, and two blue LEDs).
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 the light assembly of Wheatley to include the teachings of Cheng so that the light source includes a group of 2 to 6 LEDs; and each LED emits at least one of a red, green, or blue spectrum light for the purpose of using the light assembly in a known application such as a projector.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson et al. (US 2007/0242198) (hereafter Watson), as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding claim 16, Watson discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
Watson also discloses that the reflective polarizer transmits light from the backlight and that the backlight comprises blue, green, and red LEDs (see at least paragraphs [0024] and [0032])
Watson does not specifically disclose that the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth is at least 1 times larger than the spectral bandwidth of the LEDs but not larger than twice such bandwidth.
However, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth being at least 1 times larger than the spectral bandwidth of the LEDs but not larger than twice such bandwidth include optimizing the reflective polarizer to ensure adequate transmittance of the desired wavelengths, while keeping the reflective polarizer as simple and compact as possible.
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 the assembly of Watson so that the reflective polarizer spectral bandwidth is at least 1 times larger than the spectral bandwidth of the LEDs but not larger than twice such bandwidth for the purpose of optimizing the reflective polarizer to ensure adequate transmittance of the desired wavelengths, while keeping the reflective polarizer as simple and compact as possible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US 2006/0091412) (hereafter Wheatley) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wagner et al. (US 2019/0064516) (hereafter Wagner).
Regarding claim 17, Wheatley discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Wheatley does not specifically disclose at least one removable layer overlapping a surface of the reflective polarizer.
However, Wagner teaches a reflective polarizer and a sacrificial layer, which is a removable layer (see at least paragraph [0009]).
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 the assembly of Wheatley to include the teachings of Wagner so that the assembly comprises at least one removable layer overlapping a surface of the reflective polarizer for the purpose of protecting the reflective polarizer during processing (see at least paragraph [0083]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonza et al. (US 5,882,774) (hereafter Jonza).
Regarding claim 18, Jonza discloses a reflective polarizer (see at least the abstract) comprising: a first major surface (see at least Figs. 1a and 1b); a second major surface (see at least Figs. 1a and 1b); a first reflective polarizer region; and a second reflective polarizer region, wherein the first reflective polarizer region is adjacent to the first major surface; the second reflective polarizer region is adjacent to the first reflective polarizer region; the first reflective polarizer region and the second reflective polarizer region have different optical thicknesses and thus reflect different wavelengths at the same incidence angle or the same wavelength at different incidence angles (see at least Col. 4, lines 8-10; Col. 5, lines 52-54; and Col. 7, lines 66, through Col. 8, line 2, where the multilayer stack can be a composite of two or more sheets that increase the optical bandwidth, which also accommodates spectral shifts with angle).
Jonza does not specifically disclose that the first reflective polarizer region preferentially reflects at least one of red, green, or blue light at an incident angle in air of about 30-60 degrees from normal from the first major surface; and the second reflective polarizer region reflects at least of one of red, green, or blue light with an incidence angle in air of between about 0 and about 20 degrees from normal.
However, 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, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the first reflective polarizer region preferentially reflecting at least one of red, green, or blue light at an incident angle in air of about 30-60 degrees from normal from the first major surface; and the second reflective polarizer region reflecting at least of one of red, green, or blue light with an incidence angle in air of between about 0 and about 20 degrees from normal include designing the multilayer polarizer to a desired specification by choosing optical thicknesses for the two or more sheets of the composite multilayer film.
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 the reflective polarizer of Jonza so that the first reflective polarizer region preferentially reflects at least one of red, green, or blue light at an incident angle in air of about 30-60 degrees from normal from the first major surface; and the second reflective polarizer region reflects at least of one of red, green, or blue light with an incidence angle in air of between about 0 and about 20 degrees from normal for the purpose of designing the multilayer polarizer to a desired specification by choosing optical thicknesses for the two or more sheets of the composite multilayer film.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jonza et al. (US 5,882,774) (hereafter Jonza) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hirata et al. (US 2015/0020960) (hereafter Hirata).
Regarding claim 20, Jonza discloses all of the limitations of claim 19.
Jonza does not specifically disclose disposing a removable layer on the adhesive layer.
However, Hirata teaches a method of forming a polarizer with an adhesive layer and a removable layer (see at least paragraph [0065]).
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 the method of Jonza to include the teachings of Hirata so that the method comprises disposing a removable layer on the adhesive layer for the purpose of ease of manufacturing a device such as a display panel where a separately formed polarizer is adhered to the panel by removing the removable layer (see at least paragraph [0065] of Hirata).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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 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.
/ADAM W BOOHER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872