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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informality:
In Figure 11, reference number 230A should be 231A because it is a part of second textured surface 231S. Compare with Figure 12.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
985
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 5, 7: In each line, change “microstructure” to “microstructures”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3, paragraph 11, line 21 of the page: Change “inlcudes” to “includes”.
Page 8, paragraph 19, line 3 of the page: Change 20a to 20b. Compare with line 1 of the page.
Page 13, paragraph 36, line 8 of the page: Change “actual” to “actuality”, if this is what applicants intended to say.
Page 16, paragraph 45, line 9 of the page: Change “peer” to “peel”, if this is what applicants intended to say.
Page 19, paragraph 54, lines 12, 16 of the page: In each line, change “planer” to “planar”.
Page 20, paragraph 57, line 18 of the page: Delete the extraneous “I” at the end of the line.
Page 25, paragraph 75, line 20 of the page: Change 201R to 210R. Compare with line 9 of the page.
Page 28, paragraph 82, line 3 of the page: Check the translation of “filled”. Should this be “planar”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 6-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4, line 3: Add a comma after “light cured layer”.
Claim 6, line 3: Add a comma after “dimension”.
Claim 6, line 4: Add a comma after “dimension”.
Claim 7, line 6: Review “includes has” and delete one of the words.
Claim 7, line 11: Add a comma after “dimension”.
Claims 8-15 are objected to for depending from objected-to base claim 7.
Claim 15, lines 3, 4: Please provide antecedent basis for “the refractive index” in each line.
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 1-18 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 1: This claim is rejected on two bases. First, the claim, directed to an optical compensation film, requires “on an optical path of a light beam generated by a light-emitting assembly….” A question arises as to whether the claim is directed only to the optical compensation film or if the claim also includes a light-emitting assembly. Because the claim is unclear on this point, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Second, the claim requires “the first regions are formed with a plurality of first microstructures, respectively….” When the term “respectively” is used, the term matches two lists of an equal number of components, such as a first list of a, b, and c, and a second list of 1, 2, and 3. Matching these would result in a-1, b-2, and c-3. However, more than one first region is defined, but only one plurality of first microstructures. These cannot be matched on a 1-to-1 basis. Because the term “respectively” does not make sense in this context, claim 1 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, which depends from claim 1: This claim requires “the second regions are formed with a plurality of second microstructures, respectively….” As with claim 1, when the term “respectively” is used, the term matches two lists of an equal number of components, such as a first list of a, b, and c, and a second list of 1, 2, and 3. Matching these would result in a-1, b-2, and c-3. However, more than one second region is defined, but only one plurality of second microstructures. These cannot be matched on a 1-to-1 basis. Because the term “respectively” does not make sense in this context, claim 7 is rejected as indefinite.
Claims 8-15 are rejected for depending from rejected base claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 1 defines “a base having a first side and a second side opposite to each other….” Claim 10 refers to “a surface of the base facing away from the first high refractive index layer….” A question arises as to whether the surface defined in claim 10 is different from the first side or the second side defined in claim 1. Because claim 10 is unclear on this point, claim 10 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 15, which depends from claim 7, which depends from claim 1: Claim 15 refers to “the refractive index of the second high refractive index layer and the refractive index of the second low refractive index layer.” However, these refractive indexes have not been defined. (They were defined in claim 13, but claim 15 does not depend from claim 13.) Because the refractive indexes have not been defined in claims 1, 7, or 15, claim 15 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 16: As with claim 1, claim 16, directed to an optical compensation film, requires “on an optical path of a light beam generated by a light-emitting assembly….” A question arises as to whether the claim is directed only to the optical compensation film or if the claim also includes a light-emitting assembly. Because the claim is unclear on this point, claim 16 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 17 is rejected for depending from rejected base claim 16.
Regarding claim 18: As with claims 1 and 16, claim 18, directed to an optical compensation film, requires “on an optical path of a light beam by a light-emitting assembly….” (The claim again refers to the optical path later on.) A question arises as to whether the claim is directed only to the optical compensation film or if the claim also includes a light-emitting assembly. Because the claim is unclear on this point, claim 18 is rejected as indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and if the informalities were addressed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 1: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein […] the first angle, a refractive index of the first high refractive index layer, and a refractive index of the first low refractive index layer satisfy the following equation: |θ1−(180−2*(arcsin (NL1/nH1)*180/π))|≤10, in which θ1 represents the first angle, nH1 represents the refractive index of the first high refractive index layer, and NL1 represents the refractive index of the first low refractive index layer”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claims 2-15: The claims have been found allowable due to their dependency from claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 16: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein the first high refractive index layer is formed with a plurality of first microstructures at a first textured surface facing toward the first low refractive index layer, and the first microstructures define a plurality of recessed spaces, and wherein the first low refractive index layer fills the recessed spaces, and the first low refractive index layer defines at least one cavity in the first optical structure or has a porous structure, wherein at least one of the first microstructures includes a plurality of first inclined surfaces, two opposite ones of the first inclined surfaces jointly form a first angle therebetween, and the first angle ranges from 80 degrees to 120 degrees”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
With regard to claim 17: The claim has been found allowable due to its dependency from claim 16 above.
With regard to claim 18: The claim has been found allowable because the prior art of record does not disclose “wherein […] the first angle, a refractive index of the first high refractive index layer, and a refractive index of the first low refractive index layer satisfy the following equation: |θ1−(180−2*(arcsin(nL1/ nH1)*180/π))|≤10, in which θ1 represents the first angle, nH1 represents the refractive index of the first high refractive index layer, and nL1 represents the refractive index of the first low refractive index layer”, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Note: Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed May 21, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. The Office independently obtained the cited office action and a machine translation of the office action, as shown in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which accompanies this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICTORIA KATHLEEN HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-7567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8 a.m.-5 p.m.
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, Fernando Toledo can be reached at 571-272-1867. 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.
/Victoria K. Hall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897