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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 22 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 22 April 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 8-17 are non-elected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/9/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 14 November 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (US 5,825,543) (hereafter Ouderkirk).
Regarding claim 1, Ouderkirk discloses an optically diffusive film comprising a plurality of particles dispersed in a binder (see at least Fig. 1), the particles and the binder comprising respective indices n1b and n2b along a same in-plane block-direction of the optically diffusive film, and respective indices n1p and n2p along an in-plane pass-direction orthogonal to the block-direction, such that for at least a first wavelength in a first wavelength range extending from about 400 nm to about 1000 nm (see at least Col. 6, lines 28-33): a magnitude of a difference between n1b and n2b is greater than about 0.05; and a magnitude of a difference between n1p and n2p is less than about 0.05 (see at least Col. 7, lines 7-19).
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that, for a substantially normally incident light having the first wavelength, the optically diffusive film has: a diffuse optical transmittance TDb and a diffuse optical reflectance RDb when the incident light is polarized along the block-direction, TDb/RDb ≥ 4; and a total optical transmittance TTp and a diffuse optical transmittance TDp when the incident light is polarized along the pass-direction, TTp/TDp ≥ 1.1.
However, Ouderkirk discloses diffuse transmittance, diffuse reflectance, and total transmittance (see at least Col. 6, lines 44-62). Diffuse optical transmittance TDb, diffuse optical reflectance RDb, total optical transmittance TTp, and diffuse optical transmittance TDp are all considered result effective variables, and thus any inequalities relying on such variables are also considered result effective variables.
Additionally, Ouderkirk discloses a variety of properties of the film that can be optimized in order to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties (see at least Col. 5, line 11 through Col. 6, line 27).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of, for a substantially normally incident light having the first wavelength, the optically diffusive film has: a diffuse optical transmittance TDb and a diffuse optical reflectance RDb when the incident light is polarized along the block-direction, TDb/RDb ≥ 4; and a total optical transmittance TTp and a diffuse optical transmittance TDp when the incident light is polarized along the pass-direction, TTp/TDp ≥ 1.1 include optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk so that, for a substantially normally incident light having the first wavelength, the optically diffusive film has: a diffuse optical transmittance TDb and a diffuse optical reflectance RDb when the incident light is polarized along the block-direction, TDb/RDb ≥ 4; and a total optical transmittance TTp and a diffuse optical transmittance TDp when the incident light is polarized along the pass-direction, TTp/TDp ≥ 1.1 for the purpose of optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Regarding claim 2, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that for the substantially normally incident light having the first wavelength, the optically diffusive film has a diffuse optical reflectance RDp when the incident light is polarized along the pass-direction, TTp/RDp ≥ 10.
However, Ouderkirk discloses diffuse transmittance, diffuse reflectance, and total transmittance (see at least Col. 6, lines 44-62). Diffuse optical transmittance TDb, diffuse optical reflectance RDb, total optical transmittance TTp, and diffuse optical transmittance TDp are all considered result effective variables, and thus any inequalities relying on such variables are also considered result effective variables.
Additionally, Ouderkirk discloses a variety of properties of the film that can be optimized in order to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties (see at least Col. 5, line 11 through Col. 6, line 27).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of, for the substantially normally incident light having the first wavelength, the optically diffusive film has a diffuse optical reflectance RDp when the incident light is polarized along the pass-direction, TTp/RDp ≥ 10 include optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk so that, for the substantially normally incident light having the first wavelength, the optically diffusive film has a diffuse optical reflectance RDp when the incident light is polarized along the pass-direction, TTp/RDp ≥ 10 for the purpose of optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Regarding claim 3, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that, for a substantially normally incident light polarized along the block-direction, a total optical transmittance of the optically diffusive film has first and second intensity distributions in first and second scattering planes comprising the respective block- and pass-directions, the first and second intensity distributions having full width at half maxima F 1 and F2, respectively, F2/F1 ≥ 11.5.
However, Ouderkirk discloses diffuse transmittance, diffuse reflectance, and total transmittance (see at least Col. 6, lines 44-62). Diffuse optical transmittance TDb, diffuse optical reflectance RDb, total optical transmittance TTp, and diffuse optical transmittance TDp are all considered result effective variables, and thus any inequalities relying on such variables are also considered result effective variables.
Additionally, Ouderkirk discloses a variety of properties of the film that can be optimized in order to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties (see at least Col. 5, line 11 through Col. 6, line 27).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of, for a substantially normally incident light polarized along the block-direction, a total optical transmittance of the optically diffusive film has first and second intensity distributions in first and second scattering planes comprising the respective block- and pass-directions, the first and second intensity distributions having full width at half maxima F 1 and F2, respectively, F2/F1 ≥ 11.5 include optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk so that, for a substantially normally incident light polarized along the block-direction, a total optical transmittance of the optically diffusive film has first and second intensity distributions in first and second scattering planes comprising the respective block- and pass-directions, the first and second intensity distributions having full width at half maxima F 1 and F2, respectively, F2/F1 ≥ 11.5 for the purpose of optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Regarding claim 5, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the binder comprises a birefringent first thermoplastic polymer (see at least Col. 13, lines 12-37 and Col. 32, claims 21-24), where the continuous or disperse phase comprises polyethylene naphthalate, which is a birefringent thermoplastic polymer) and the particles comprise a substantially optically isotropic second thermoplastic polymer (see at least Col. 13, line 44 through Col. 14, line 19 and Col. 32, claims 25 and 26, where the second phase comprises a polystyrene, which is an optically isotropic thermoplastic polymer), the first and second thermoplastic polymers being immiscible at a temperature greater than melting temperatures of the first and second thermoplastic polymers (see at least Col. 12, line 65 through Col. 13, line 11).
Regarding claim 6, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that the optically diffusive film has an optical haze Hb for substantially normally incident light polarized along the block- direction and an optical haze Hp for substantially normally incident light polarized along the pass-direction, Hb/Hp ≥ 1.5.
Haze is a known result effective variable since it affects the image quality of light transmitted through a film and is related to the diffusion of transmitted light.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the film satisfying Hb/Hp ≥ 1.5 include improving image quality of light transmitted through the film.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk so that the film satisfies Hb/Hp ≥ 1.5 for the purpose of improving the image quality of light transmitted through the film.
Regarding claim 7, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the particles are elongated along the in-plane block-direction and have an aspect ratio of at least 5 (see at least Fig. 1 and Col. 11, lines 61-66).
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that the particles have an average aspect ratio of greater than about 10.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the particles having an average aspect ratio of greater than about 10 include enhancing polarization reflection (see at least Col. 10, lines 32-50 of Ouderkirk).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk so that the particles have an average aspect ratio of greater than about 10 for the purpose of enhancing polarization reflection (see at least Col. 10, lines 32-50 of Ouderkirk).
Regarding claim 18, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that TTp/TDp is no more than about 5.
However, Ouderkirk discloses diffuse transmittance, diffuse reflectance, and total transmittance (see at least Col. 6, lines 44-62). Diffuse optical transmittance TDb, diffuse optical reflectance RDb, total optical transmittance TTp, and diffuse optical transmittance TDp are all considered result effective variables, and thus any inequalities relying on such variables are also considered result effective variables.
Additionally, Ouderkirk discloses a variety of properties of the film that can be optimized in order to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties (see at least Col. 5, line 11 through Col. 6, line 27).
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of TTp/TDp is no more than about 5 include optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk so that TTp/TDp is no more than about 5 for the purpose of optimizing the film to obtain the desired scattering, diffusion, reflection, and transmission properties.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (US 5,825,543) (hereafter Ouderkirk) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hebrink et al. (US 2008/0020186) (hereafter Hebrink).
Regarding claim 4, Ouderkirk discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Ouderkirk also discloses that the optically diffusive film is formed by an extrusion process (see at least Col. 11, lines 17-24).
Ouderkirk does not specifically disclose that the optically diffusive film comprises a plurality of substantially parallel extrusion die-lines making an angle of less than about 20 degrees with the pass-direction.
However, Hebrink teaches an optically diffusive film (see at least the abstract and Fig. 2) formed by an extrusion process, wherein the optically diffusive film comprises a plurality of substantially parallel extrusion die-lines making an angle of less than about 20 degrees with the pass-direction (see at least paragraphs [0004]-[0005], where the film comprises a plurality of die-lines in the extrusion direction, which is the machine direction (MD), and where the block axis is along the transverse direction (TD), thus the die-lines are parallel to the pass-direction of the film).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the film of Ouderkirk to include the teachings of Hebrink so that the optically diffusive film comprises a plurality of substantially parallel extrusion die-lines making an angle of less than about 20 degrees with the pass-direction for the purpose of reducing defects from the die lines (see at least paragraph [0005] of Hebrink).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights