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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed January 7, 2026. Claim 12 has been cancelled without prejudice. Claims 1-11 and 13-21 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 7-11 of the Remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Namely, the limitations of former dependent claim 12 were amended into independent claim 1. Previously, the limitations of claim 12 were taught using the Furuya et al. reference, as set forth in the previous office. Further, applicant asserts that Furuya et al. does not disclose the teachings of newly amended claim 1 (i.e. former claim 12) and cites to paragraphs from the original document. However, it is noted that a translation of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) was provided in the Non-Final office action mailed on November 29, 2024. Excerpts from that translation relied upon by the office action are provided below for applicant’s convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
211
863
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
219
854
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, fails to disclose the limitation, “the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive”, However, Furuya et al., as set forth below and in the previous office action, discloses the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and page 7, first full paragraph). Namely, the Furuya et al. document is drawn to an anti-glare film and anti-glare polarizing plate (see e.g. title of Furuya et al.) that uses a transparent resin that is optically mismatched from the binder layer. Such resins are mixed with fine transparent materials in liquid form before hardening via UV light or other means. Therefore, the cited portion of Furuya et al., included above, disclose “the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive”.
Similar arguments apply to independent claims 1, 14, and 19.
Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are rejected as set forth below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) and further in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1).
In regard to claim 1, US 11,808,957 claims a display system, comprising (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, line 18):
a backlight configured for providing light (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 19-22);
a first display unit disposed proximate to the backlight (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 23-33) wherein the first display unit includes:
a first substrate and a second substrate (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 24-26);
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 24-26);
is pixelated (see e.g. Claim 1, Column 17, line 31);
a second display unit disposed proximate to the first display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 34- 42);
a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 43-44), wherein the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive (see e.g. claim 7, Column 18, lines 13-16); and
a controller configured for adjusting the first display unit between at least a first transmissive state and a second transmissive state, the first transmissive state resulting in a first percentage of the light passing through the first display unit, the second transmissive state resulting in a second percentage of the light passing through the first display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 45-58).
US 11,808,957 fails to claim
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate;
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate;
a thin film transistor structure between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate;
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate.
However, Hirata discloses
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a thin film transistor structure 203 between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate (see e.g. paragraph [0191] and Figure 3 and note the alignment layer is in contact with a surface in contact with the liquid crystal and the thin film transistors are formed on the substrate, thus satisfying the limitation).
Given the teachings of Hirata, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957 with a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate; a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate; a thin film transistor structure between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate.
Alignment layers provide a uniform alignment at the liquid crystal layer surfaces which provides a more uniform display. Thin film transistors allow the device to be addressed actively, pixel by pixel, so that finer control of the switching of the panel is achieved.
US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first and second substrates 50, 30 are glass (see e.g. paragraph [0007] for glass substrates);
one or more reflective matrix elements between the first glass substrate 50 and the second glass substrate 30 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35). Although Wang does not disclose the reflective matrix between a second alignment layer and the second glass substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with Yang would yield such structure since the alignment layer should be in contact with the liquid crystal layer in order to provide the aligning force to the layer.
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with the first display and second substrates are glass; one or more reflective matrix elements between the first glass substrate and the second glass substrate.
Using glass substrates is known in the art to provide a flat and structured surface for liquid crystal cells. Further, by using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
In regard to claim 2, US 11,808,957 claims the limitations of claim 1, as cited above, but fails to disclose
the second percentage is less than the first percentage; and
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
However, Hirata discloses
the second percentage is less than the first percentage (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
Given the teachings of Hirata, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the claimed invention of US 11,808,957 with the second percentage is less than the first percentage.
Doing so would provide a device with variable transmission that allows for switching of optical states of the device.
US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, fails to disclose
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
In regard to claim 3, US 11,808,957 claims the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
a first reflective polarizer positioned between the second display unit and the first display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 28-29); and
a second reflective polarizer positioned between the first display unit and the backlight (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 29-30).
In regard to claim 4, US 11,808,957 claims the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
the liquid crystal layer being pixelated such that each pixel is dynamically configured to optically rotate the light to produce a local dimming at a pixel level (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 25, 31-33).
In regard to claim 20, US 11,808,957 claims a display system comprising (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, line 18):
a backlight configured to generate and project light (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 19-22);
a first display unit disposed proximate to the backlight (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 23-33), wherein the first display unit includes:
a first substrate and a second substrate (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 24-26);
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 24-26);
a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 43-44), wherein the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive (see e.g. claim 8, Column 18, lines 17-20),
a second display unit disposed proximate to the first display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 34- 42);
a controller configured for adjusting the first display unit between at least a first transmissive state and a second transmissive state, the first transmissive state resulting in a first percentage of the light passing through the first display unit and out to the second display unit, the second transmissive state resulting in a second percentage of the light passing through the first display unit and out to the second display unit, the second percentage being less than the first percentage (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 45-58).
US 11,808,957 fails to claim
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate;
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate;
a thin film transistor structure between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate;
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate.
However, Hirata discloses
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a thin film transistor structure 203 between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate (see e.g. paragraph [0191] and Figure 3 and note the alignment layer is in contact with a surface in contact with the liquid crystal and the thin film transistors are formed on the substrate, thus satisfying the limitation).
Given the teachings of Hirata, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957 with a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate; a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate; a thin film transistor structure between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate.
Alignment layers provide a uniform alignment at the liquid crystal layer surfaces which provides a more uniform display. Thin film transistors allow the device to be addressed actively, pixel by pixel, so that finer control of the switching of the panel is achieved.
US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first and second substrates 50, 30 are glass (see e.g. paragraph [0007] for glass substrates);
one or more reflective matrix elements between the first glass substrate 50 and the second glass substrate 30 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35). Although Wang does not disclose the reflective matrix between a second alignment layer and the second glass substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with Yang would yield such structure since the alignment layer should be in contact with the liquid crystal layer in order to provide the aligning force to the layer.
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957 with the first display and second substrates are glass; one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate.
Using glass substrates is known in the art to provide a flat and structured surface for liquid crystal cells. Further, by using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
Claims 5, 6, 14-16 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of De Vaan (WO 2006/046168 A1).
In regard to claim 5, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, fails to disclose
the second reflective polarizer reflects a portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
However, De Vaan discloses
the second reflective polarizer 20 reflects a portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the polarizer will reflect and transmit portions of the light).
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 claimed invention of US,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the second reflective polarizer reflects a portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 6, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, fails to disclose
the first reflective polarizer reflects an additional portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
However, De Vaan discloses
the first reflective polarizer 19 reflects an additional portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the polarizer will reflect and transmit portions of the light).
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 claimed invention of US 808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the first reflective polarizer reflects an additional portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 14, US 11,808,957 discloses a display system comprising (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, line 18):
a backlight configured for providing light (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 19-22);
a first display unit disposed proximate to the backlight, wherein the first display unit includes:
a first substrate and a second substrate (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 24-26);
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 24-26);
a second display unit disposed proximate to the first display unit, the second display unit including a thin film transistor (TFT) and at least one linear polarizer (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 34- 42);
a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 43-44), wherein the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive (see e.g. claim 7, Column 18, lines 13-16); and
a controller configured for adjusting the liquid crystal layer between at least a first transmissive state and a second transmissive state, the first transmissive state resulting in a first percentage of the light passing through the liquid crystal layer and the second transmissive state resulting in a second percentage of the light passing through the liquid crystal (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 45-58).
US 11,808,957 fails to claim
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate;
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate;
a thin film transistor structure between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate;
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the first glass substrate and the second glass substrate;
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film.
However, Hirata discloses
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a thin film transistor structure 203 between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate (see e.g. paragraph [0191] and Figure 3 and note the alignment layer is in contact with a surface in contact with the liquid crystal and the thin film transistors are formed on the substrate, thus satisfying the limitation).
Given the teachings of Hirata, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957 with a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate; a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate; a thin film transistor structure between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate.
Alignment layers provide a uniform alignment at the liquid crystal layer surfaces which provides a more uniform display. Thin film transistors allow the device to be addressed actively, pixel by pixel, so that finer control of the switching of the panel is achieved.
US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate;
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film.
However, Wang discloses
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35). Although Wang does not disclose the reflective matrix between a second alignment layer and the second glass substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with Yang would yield such structure since the alignment layer should be in contact with the liquid crystal layer in order to provide the aligning force to the layer.
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
US 11,808,957 in view of Wang, fails to disclose
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film.
However, De Vaan discloses (see e.g. Figure 3 and abstract):
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer 19 cooperating with a brightness enhancing film 20.
Given the teachings of De Vaan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the invention of 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 15, US 11,808,957 claims the limitations of claim 14, and
the liquid crystal layer is pixelated such that each pixel is dynamically configured to optically rotate the light to produce a local dimming at a pixel level (see e.g. claim 1, lines 31-33).
US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, fails to claim
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
In regard to claim 16, US 11,808,957 claims the limitations of claim 14, and
the at least one reflective polarizer of the first display unit includes a first reflective polarizer on one side of the liquid crystal layer and a second reflective polarizer on an opposed side of the liquid crystal layer (see e.g. claim 1, Column 17, lines 28-30).
In regard to claim 19, US 11,808,957 claims the limitations of claim 14, but fails to claim
the second percentage is less than the first percentage.
However, Hirata discloses
the second percentage is less than the first percentage (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
Given the teachings of Hirata, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957 with the second percentage is less than the first percentage.
Doing so would provide a device with variable transmission that allows for switching of optical states of the device.
Claims 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1).
In regard to claim 7, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser is arranged to provide a light profile transition for the light transmitted through the first display unit.
However, Kitagawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the diffuser 14 is arranged to provide a light profile transition for the light transmitted through the first display unit 11.
Given the teachings of Kitagawa et al., 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with a with the diffuser is arranged to provide a light profile transition for the light transmitted through the first display unit.
Doing so would provide a means for preventing parallax between the display, thus preventing deterioration of image quality in angular directions (see e.g. paragraph [0050] of Kitagawa et al.).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Konuma (US 2017/0329160 A1).
In regard to claim 8, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, claims the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to claim
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
However, Konuma discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0088]):
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Given the teachings of Konuma, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
In regard to claim 21, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 20 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
However, Konuma discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0088]):
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Given the teachings of Konuma, 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Hao et al. (US 9,960,389 B1).
In regard to claim 9, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, claims the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to claims
the diffuser includes an optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
However, Hao et al. discloses (see e.g. Column 29, lines 1-12):
the diffuser includes an optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Given the teachings of Hao et al., 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the diffuser includes an optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Dozeman et al. (US 2019/0270411 A1).
In regard to claim 10, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, claims the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to claim
the diffuser includes a liquid optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
However, Dozeman et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0031]):
the diffuser includes a liquid optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Given the teachings of Dozeman et al., 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the diffuser includes a liquid optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Leu et al. (US 2005/0140258 A1).
In regard to claim 11, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, claims the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to claim
the diffuser includes an anti-sparkle film having diffraction grating structures.
However, Leu et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0010]):
the diffuser includes an anti-sparkle film having diffraction grating structures.
Given the teachings of Leu et al., 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 claimed invention of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the diffuser includes an anti-sparkle film having diffraction grating structures.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536).
In regard to claim 13, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, claims the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to claim
the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Furuya et al. discloses (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and page 7, first full paragraph):
the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Given the teachings of Furuya et al., 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 device of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata and Wang, with the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of De Vaan (WO 2006/046168 A1) and further in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2001/0008464 A1).
In regard to claim 17, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, Wang, and De Vaan, claims the limitations of claim 17, but fails to claim
the second reflective polarizer includes an anti-reflection film disposed on a rear surface.
However, Ouderkirk et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0088] where use of anti-reflection coatings on reflective polarizers is noted):
the second reflective polarizer includes an anti-reflection film disposed on a rear surface.
Given the teachings of Ouderkirk et al., 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 device of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, Wang, and De Vaan, with the second reflective polarizer includes an anti-reflection film disposed on a rear surface.
Doing so would provide a film that prevents unwanted losses due to surface reflections.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,808,957 in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of De Vaan (WO 2006/046168 A1) in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2001/0008464 A1) and further in view of Tsuda et al. (US 2012/0008213 A1).
In regard to claim 18, US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, Wang, De Vaan and Ouderkirk, claims the limitations of claim 18, but fails to claim the anti-reflection film includes a moth-eye-type antireflection film.
However, Tsuda et al. discloses
the anti-reflection film includes a moth-eye-type antireflection film (see e.g. abstract).
Given the teachings of Tsuda et al., 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 device of US 11,808,957, in view of Hirata, Wang, De Vaan and Ouderkirk, with the anti-reflection film includes a moth-eye-type antireflection film.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent means for obtaining an antireflection film.
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 8-11, 13, and 21 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.
In regard to dependent claims 8-11 and 13, the claims cite alternate structures of the diffuser structure as set forth in independent claim 1. However, applicant’s recent amendment including the limitations of claim 12 in claim 1 specify the diffuser structure to include “. . . an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.” Claim 1 now appears to be drawn to Figure 12 while claims 8-11 and 13 are drawn to Figures 8-11 and 13 and thus claims 8-11 and 13 appear to be conflicting embodiments. Therefore, the scope of said claims is unclear. Namely, it is not clear if applicant is claiming additional diffusers or a diffuser that additionally satisfies the limitations in claims 8-11 and 13. For examination purposes, it is presumed that either of those conditions satisfies the claims.
Similar arguments apply to dependent claim 21.
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, 2, 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and further in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536).
In regard to claim 1, Hirata discloses a display system, comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 4):
a backlight LIGHT SOURCE configured for providing light;
a first display unit SECOND PANEL disposed proximate to the backlight LIGHT SOURCE, wherein the first display unit SECOND PANEL includes:
a first substrate and a second substrate (unlabeled, see annotated Figure 1 below);
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (unlabeled, see e.g. paragraph [0053] and annotated Figure 1 below);
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a thin film transistor structure 203 between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate (see e.g. paragraph [0191] and Figure 3 and note the alignment layer is in contact with a surface in contact with the liquid crystal and the thin film transistors are formed on the substrate, thus satisfying the limitation);
a second display unit FIRST PANEL disposed proximate to the first display unit SECOND PANEL;
a controller DISPLAY CONTROLLER configured for adjusting the first display unit SECOND PANEL between at least a first transmissive state and a second transmissive state, wherein the first transmissive state results in a first percentage of the light passing through the first display unit; and the second transmissive state results in a second percentage of the light passing through the first display unit (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
PNG
media_image3.png
650
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hirata fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate;
a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit, wherein the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Kitagawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a diffuser 14 disposed between the first display unit 11 and the second display unit 12.
Given the teachings of Kitagawa et al., 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 device of Hirata with a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit.
Doing so would provide a means for preventing parallax between the display, thus preventing deterioration of image quality in angular directions (see e.g. paragraph [0050] of Kitagawa et al.).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate; wherein the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first and second substrates 50, 30 are glass (see e.g. paragraph [0007] for glass substrates);
one or more reflective matrix elements between the first glass substrate 50 and the second glass substrate 30 (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35). Although Wang does not disclose the reflective matrix between a second alignment layer and the second glass substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with Yang would yield such structure since the alignment layer should be in contact with the liquid crystal layer in order to provide the aligning force to the layer.
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with the first display and second substrates are glass; one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate.
Using glass substrates is known in the art to provide a flat and structured surface for liquid crystal cells. Further, by using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, fails to disclose
wherein the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Furuya et al. discloses (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and page 7, first full paragraph):
the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Given the teachings of Furuya et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, with the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
In regard to claim 2, Hirata discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
the second percentage is less than the first percentage (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., fails to disclose
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
In regard to claim 7, Hirata discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser is arranged to provide a light profile transition for the light transmitted through the first display unit.
However, Kitagawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the diffuser 14 is arranged to provide a light profile transition for the light transmitted through the first display unit 11.
Given the teachings of Kitagawa et al., 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 device of Hirata with the diffuser is arranged to provide a light profile transition for the light transmitted through the first display unit.
Doing so would provide a means for preventing parallax between the display, thus preventing deterioration of image quality in angular directions (see e.g. paragraph [0050] of Kitagawa et al.).
In regard to claim 13, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Furuya et al. discloses (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and page 7, first full paragraph):
the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Given the teachings of Furuya et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, with the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
In regard to claim 20, Hirata discloses a display system comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 4):
a backlight LIGHT SOURCE configured to generate and project light;
a first display unit SECOND PANEL disposed proximate to the backlight LIGHT SOURCE, wherein the first display unit SECOND PANEL includes:
a first substrate and a second substrate (unlabeled, see annotated Figure 1 below);
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (unlabeled, see e.g. paragraph [0053] and annotated Figure 1 below); and
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a thin film transistor structure 203 between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate (see e.g. paragraph [0191] and Figure 3 and note the alignment layer is in contact with a surface in contact with the liquid crystal and the thin film transistors are formed on the substrate, thus satisfying the limitation);
a second display unit FIRST PANEL disposed proximate to the first display unit SECOND PANEL;
a controller DISPLAY CONTROLLER configured for adjusting the first display unit SECOND PANEL between at least a first transmissive state and a second transmissive state, the first transmissive state resulting in a first percentage of the light passing through the first display unit and out to the second display unit, the second transmissive state resulting in a second percentage of the light passing through the first display unit and out to the second display unit, the second percentage being less than the first percentage (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
Hirata fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate;
a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit, where the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Kitagawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a diffuser 14 disposed between the first display unit 11 and the second display unit 12.
Given the teachings of Kitagawa et al., 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 device of Hirata with a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit.
Doing so would provide a means for preventing parallax between the display, thus preventing deterioration of image quality in angular directions (see e.g. paragraph [0050] of Kitagawa et al.).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate;
where the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Wang discloses
the first and second substrates 50, 30 are glass (see e.g. paragraph [0007] for glass substrates);
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35). Although Wang does not disclose the reflective matrix between a second alignment layer and the second glass substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with Yang would yield such structure since the alignment layer should be in contact with the liquid crystal layer in order to provide the aligning force to the layer.
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 device of Hirata with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second alignment layer and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, fails to disclose
wherein the diffuser includes an ant-glare polarizer film have an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Furuya et al. discloses (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and page 7, first full paragraph):
the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Given the teachings of Furuya et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, with the diffuser includes a surface diffuser film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claims 3-6, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) and further in view of De Vaan (WO 2006/046168 A1).
In regard to claim 3¸ Hirata, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, and
a first polarizer POLARIZER B positioned between the second display unit FIRST PANEL and the first display unit SECOND PANEL; and
a second polarizer POLARIZER C positioned between the first display unit SECOND PANEL and the backlight LIGHT SOURCE.
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang and Furuya et al., fails to disclose
the polarizers are reflective.
However, De Vann discloses (see e.g. Figure 3 and abstract):
the polarizers 20, 19 are reflective.
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang and Furuya et al., with the polarizers are reflective.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 4, Hirata discloses the limitations as applied to claim 3 above, and
the liquid crystal layer is pixelated such that each pixel is dynamically configured to optically rotate the light to produce a local dimming at a pixel level (see e.g. paragraph [0184] where it is noted that it is a liquid crystal device and [0187] where it is noted that it may be a twisted nematic device which optically rotates the light).
In regard to claim 5, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 4 above, but fails to disclose
the second reflective polarizer reflects a portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
However, De Vaan discloses
the second reflective polarizer 20 reflects a portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the polarizer will reflect and transmit portions of the light).
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the second reflective polarizer reflects a portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 6, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 5 above, and
the first reflective polarizer reflects an additional portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
However, De Vaan discloses
the first reflective polarizer 19 reflects an additional portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that the polarizer will reflect and transmit portions of the light).
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the first reflective polarizer reflects an additional portion of the light to the backlight for recycling during both of the first and second transmissive states.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 14, Hirata discloses a display system comprising (see e.g. Figures 1 and 4):
a backlight LIGHT SOURCE configured for providing light;
a first display unit SECOND PANEL disposed proximate to the backlight LIGHT SOURCE, wherein the first display unit SECOND PANEL includes:
a first substrate and a second substrate (unlabeled, see annotated Figure 1 above);
a liquid crystal layer between the first substrate and the second substrate (unlabeled, see e.g. paragraph [0053] and annotated Figure 1 below); and
a first alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the first glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a second alignment layer disposed between the liquid crystal layer and the second glass substrate (see. e.g. paragraph [0189] where it is noted that a vertical alignment film is formed on each of the surfaces of the substrates that contacts the liquid crystal);
a thin film transistor structure 203 between the first alignment layer and the first glass substrate (see e.g. paragraph [0191] and Figure 3 and note the alignment layer is in contact with a surface in contact with the liquid crystal and the thin film transistors are formed on the substrate, thus satisfying the limitation);
a second display unit FIRST PANEL disposed proximate to the first display unit SECOND PANEL, the second display unit including a thin film transistor (TFT) 203 and at least one linear polarizer POLARIZER A (see e.g. Figures 1 and 3);
a controller configured DISPLAY CONTROLLER for adjusting the liquid crystal layer between at least a first transmissive state and a second transmissive state, the first transmissive state resulting in a first percentage of the light passing through the liquid crystal layer and the second transmissive state resulting in a second percentage of the light passing through the liquid crystal (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
Hirata fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate;
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film;
a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit,
wherein the diffuser includes an ant-glare polarizer film have an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Kitagawa et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
a diffuser 14 disposed between the first display unit 11 and the second display unit 12.
Given the teachings of Kitagawa et al., 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 device of Hirata with a diffuser disposed between the first display unit and the second display unit.
Doing so would provide a means for preventing parallax between the display, thus preventing deterioration of image quality in angular directions (see e.g. paragraph [0050] of Kitagawa et al.).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., fails to disclose
the first display and second substrates are glass;
one or more reflective matrix elements between the second alignment layer and the second glass substrate;
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film,
wherein the diffuser includes an ant-glare polarizer film have an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Wang discloses
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35). Although Wang does not disclose the reflective matrix between a second alignment layer and the second glass substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the combination of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with Yang would yield such structure since the alignment layer should be in contact with the liquid crystal layer in order to provide the aligning force to the layer.
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second alignment layer and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, fails to disclose
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film,
wherein the diffuser includes an ant-glare polarizer film have an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
However, Furuya et al. discloses (see e.g. page 6, first full paragraph and page 7, first full paragraph):
the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Given the teachings of Furuya et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al. and Wang, with the diffuser includes an anti-glare polarizer film having an index mismatched liquid optically clear adhesive.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., fails to disclose
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film.
However, De Vaan discloses (see e.g. Figure 3 and abstract):
the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer 19 cooperating with a brightness enhancing film 20.
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the first display unit including at least one reflective polarizer cooperating with a brightness enhancing film.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 15, Hirata discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
the liquid crystal layer being pixelated such that each pixel is dynamically configured to optically rotate the light to produce a local dimming at a pixel level (see e.g. paragraph [0184] where it is noted that it is a liquid crystal device and [0187] where it is noted that it may be a twisted nematic device which optically rotates the light).
Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., fails to disclose
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
However, Wang discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
the first display unit further includes a black matrix element 35 disposed between the second glass substrate 30 and the one or more reflective matrix elements (see e.g. Figure 1 and paragraph [0032] where it is noted that a reflection layer is provided on the black matrix layer 35).
Given the teachings of Wang, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., with the first display unit further includes a black matrix element disposed between the second glass substrate and the one or more reflective matrix elements.
By using a reflective matrix coating on a black matrix, the light utilization ratio of the backlight can be improved by reflecting light incident upon the black matrix portion and thus provide a light recycling effect (see e.g. paragraph [0032] of Wang).
In regard to claim 16, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, but fails to disclose
the at least one reflective polarizer of the first display unit includes a first reflective polarizer on one side of the liquid crystal layer and a second reflective polarizer on an opposed side of the liquid crystal layer.
However, De Vaan discloses (see e.g. Figure 3):
the at least one reflective polarizer of the first display unit includes a first reflective polarizer 19 on one side of the liquid crystal layer 18 and a second reflective polarizer 20 on an opposed side of the liquid crystal layer 18.
Given the teachings of De Vaan, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the at least one reflective polarizer of the first display unit includes a first reflective polarizer on one side of the liquid crystal layer and a second reflective polarizer on an opposed side of the liquid crystal layer.
Doing so would provide light recycling which allows a more efficient use of the back light source (see e.g. page 4, second full paragraph of De Vaan).
In regard to claim 19, Hirata discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
the second percentage is less than the first percentage (see e.g. paragraphs [0196]-[0200] and note that the driver is able to provide various signals that result in transmissive states that meet the limitation).
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) and in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) further in view of Konuma (US 2017/0329160 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
However, Konuma discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0088]):
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Given the teachings of Konuma, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
In regard to claim 21, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 20 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
However, Konuma discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0088]):
the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Given the teachings of Konuma, 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the diffuser includes a base plastic film including a light scattering agent.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) and further in view of Hao et al. (US 9,960,389 B1).
In regard to claim 9, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes an optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
However, Hao et al. discloses (see e.g. Column 29, lines 1-12):
the diffuser includes an optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Given the teachings of Hao et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the diffuser includes an optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) and further in view of Dozeman et al. (US 2019/0270411 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes a liquid optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
However, Dozeman et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0031]):
the diffuser includes a liquid optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Given the teachings of Dozeman et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the diffuser includes a liquid optically clear adhesive infused with diffusion beads.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) and further in view of Leu et al. (US 2005/0140258 A1).
In regard to claim 11, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the diffuser includes an anti-sparkle film having diffraction grating structures.
However, Leu et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0010]):
the diffuser includes an anti-sparkle film having diffraction grating structures.
Given the teachings of Leu et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, and Furuya et al., with the diffuser includes an anti-sparkle film having diffraction grating structures.
Doing so provide a commonly used means for scattering light which results in a more even light distribution.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) in view of De Vaan (WO 2006/046168 A1) and further in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2001/0008464 A1).
In regard to claim 17, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, Furuya et al. and De Vaan, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 16 above, but fails to disclose
the second reflective polarizer includes an anti-reflection film disposed on a rear surface.
However, Ouderkirk et al. discloses (see e.g. paragraph [0088] where use of anti-reflection coatings on reflective polarizers is noted):
the second reflective polarizer includes an anti-reflection film disposed on a rear surface.
Given the teachings of Ouderkirk et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, Furuya et al. and De Vaan, with the second reflective polarizer includes an anti-reflection film disposed on a rear surface.
Doing so would provide a film that prevents unwanted losses due to surface reflections.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Hirata (US 2010/0002018 A1) in view of Kitagawa et al. (US 2007/0242028 A1) in view of Wang (US 2017/0102579 A1) in view of Furuya et al. (WO 2009/107536) in view of De Vaan (WO 2006/046168 A1) in view of Ouderkirk et al. (US 2001/0008464 A1) and further in view of Tsuda et al. (US 2012/0008213 A1).
In regard to claim 18, Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, Furuya et al., De Vaan, and Ouderkirk et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 17 above, but fails to disclose
the anti-reflection film includes a moth-eye-type antireflection film.
However, Tsuda et al. discloses
the anti-reflection film includes a moth-eye-type antireflection film (see e.g. abstract).
Given the teachings of Tsuda et al., 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 device of Hirata, in view of Kitagawa et al., Wang, Furuya et al., De Vaan, and Ouderkirk et al., with the anti-reflection film includes a moth-eye-type antireflection film.
Doing so would provide an art recognized equivalent means for obtaining an antireflection film.
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871