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 .
Claims 1, 6, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 17, 19, 21, and 23-32 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 10-11, 17, 19, 23, and 25-32 are original; claims 2-5, 7, 9, 12, 15-16, 18, 20, and 22 have been canceled by the applicant; and claims 6, 8, 13-14, 21, and 24 are currently amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 28 November 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because the claim limitation “antiglare layer” should read “anti-glare layer.”
Claim 25 is objected to because the limitations “the two caps sheet tabs” and “the at least one back sheet tab” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 26 is objected to because the limitation “the remaining bubbles” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. In addition, the limitation “a computing device display” in line 9 should be “the computing device display” because the antecedent “computing device display” is found in line 1 of the claim.
Claim 27 is objected to because the limitation “the wavelength range of 415 nm to 465 nm” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 29 is objected to because it contains a grammar error. The limitation “applies” should read “applied”.
Claim 30 is objected to because the limitation “a back sheet” should read “the back sheet” because the antecedent “back sheet” is present in line 4 of claim 26.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, 17, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (FR2966934) (citations made to English language translation, attached).
Re: claim 1, Hsu discloses a light filtration layer (Fig. 1A, the instance of element 11 that is second from the top, where page 3 discloses that the film can comprise an anti-reflective film or an anti-glare film); a back sheet (Fig. 1A the topmost instance of element 11) lining on a first side of the light filtration layer (lining disclosed in Fig. 1A, where the first side is the upper horizontally extending side of the light filtration layer); and a cap sheet (Fig. 1A, the instance of element 11 that is on the bottom) on a second side opposite the first side of the light filtration layer (disposition disclosed in Fig. 1A, where the second side is the lower horizontally extending side of the light filtration layer); and at least one cap sheet tab 4 on the cap sheet (Figs. 4, 4A).
Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the at least one cap sheet tab is used for aligning the light-filtering film with a computing device display; however, the limitation “is used for aligning the light-filtering film with a computing device display” is a functional claim limitation setting forth an intended use. It has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP § 2114(II)). Because Hsu teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the claim limitation is not differentiated from the device disclosed by Hsu.
Re: claim 13, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Hsu further discloses an anti-glare layer (page 2 “Figure 1G is a schematic view of the present invention where the optical film is the anti-glare film”), wherein the cap sheet (Fig. 1A, the instance of element 11 that is on the bottom) is adhered to the anti-glare layer (adhesion by layer 12 disclosed in Fig. 1A).
Re: claim 17, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Hsu further discloses a back sheet removal tab 4 secured along a top edge (Fig. 4 discloses top edge) of the back sheet (Fig. 1A the topmost instance of element 11).
Re: claim 24, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Hsu further discloses an anti-glare layer 1 (page 2 “Figure 1G is a schematic view of the present invention where the optical film is the anti-glare film”) positioned (positioning disclosed in Fig. 1A) between the cap sheet (Fig. 1A, the instance of element 11 that is on the bottom) and the light filtration layer (Fig. 1A, the instance of element 11 that is second from the top) and a base layer (the element 11 that is second from the bottom in Fig. 1A). While Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the base layer positioned between the light filtration layer and the back sheet, there are no structural limitations set forth in Fig. 1A that would prevent the base layer from being disposed anywhere within the film because the base layer is comprised of the same elements as the back sheet, cap sheet, and light filtration layer. It would have been obvious to try to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the effective date to locate the base layer between the light filtration layer and the back sheet of the disclosed film since there are only a finite number of locations within the film where the base layer may be placed.
Claim(s) 6, 8, 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Barrett (US 20190196071).
Re: claim 6, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that light filtered by the light filtration layer is high energy visible blue light having a wavelength of between about 415 nm and about 455 nm.
Barrett discloses that light filtered by the light filtration layer 278 is high energy visible blue light having a wavelength of between about 415 nm and about 455 nm (Table 3 discloses that 67% of HEV light in the wavelength range of 415 – 455 is absorbed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have light filtered by the light filtration layer is high energy visible blue light having a wavelength of between about 415 nm and about 455 nm, as disclosed by Barrett, as applied to the device disclosed by Hsu for the purpose of reducing eye strain (see para. 6 in Barrett).
Re: claim 8, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the light filtration layer includes at least one of blue light filtering dyes or color correction dyes.
Barrett discloses that the light filtration layer includes at least one of blue light filtering dyes or color correction dyes (para. 196; Table 7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light filtration layer includes at least one of blue light filtering dyes or color correction dyes, as disclosed by Barrett, as applied to the device disclosed by Hsu for the purpose of minimizing the transmission of light having harmful wavelengths.
Re: claim 10, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the light filtration layer includes a first absorbing compound combined with a polymer substrate, the first absorbing compound absorbing blue light in a blue notch band having a full-width half maximum of not greater than about 50 nm.
Barrett discloses that the light filtration layer includes a first absorbing compound combined with a polymer substrate, the first absorbing compound absorbing blue light in a blue notch band having a full-width half maximum of not greater than about 50 nm (paras. 191 - 192).
Re: claim 11, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the light filtration layer further comprises an absorbing compound absorbing red light in a red notch.
Barrett discloses the light filtration layer further comprises an absorbing compound absorbing red light in a red notch (para. 192 discloses the use of absorption dye to filter light in the red spectrum).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an absorbing compound absorbing red light in a red notch, as disclosed by Barrett, as applied to the device disclosed by Hsu for the purpose of compensating the color temperature shift caused by having a blue absorbing filter (see Barrett para. 193).
Re: claim 14, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1, however, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the light-filtering film has a haze level of 16-20% and a correlated color temperature loss of less than 500 Kelvin.
Barrett discloses that the light-filtering film has a haze level of 16-20% (para. 130 discloses haze of up to 26%, which overlaps the claimed range) and a correlated color temperature loss of less than 500 Kelvin (para. 194).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light-filtering film have a haze level of 16-20% and a correlated color temperature loss of less than 500 Kelvin for the purpose of minimizing the cloudiness of the filtered light while also minimizing any shift or degradation in the filtered light.
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Minami (US 20030133207).
Re: claim 19, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1; however, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the at least one cap sheet tab is comprised of two cap sheet tabs with a first cap sheet tab secured along a right edge of the cap sheet and a second cap sheet tab secured along a left edge of the cap sheet.
Minami discloses that the at least one cap sheet tab 10a, 10b (Fig. 1) is comprised of two cap sheet tabs 10a, 10b with a first cap sheet tab secured along a right edge of the cap sheet and a second cap sheet tab secured along a left edge of the cap sheet (secured on left and right edges disclosed in Fig 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one cap sheet tab be comprised of two cap sheet tabs with a first cap sheet tab secured along a right edge of the cap sheet and a second cap sheet tab secured along a left edge of the cap sheet, as disclosed by Minami, as applied to the device disclosed by Hsu in order to more easily release the desired filtering layers from any adhesive layers (see para. 32 of Minami).
Re: claim 23, Hsu discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Hsu further discloses that the light filtering film is further comprised of at least one back sheet tab 4 that is located on a top edge (location at top edge disclosed in Fig. 4) of back sheet (Fig. 1A the topmost instance of element 11); a first adhesive layer 61 is covered by the back sheet; and a second adhesive layer 12 is covered by the cap sheet.
However, Hsu does not explicitly disclose that the at least one cap sheet tab on the cap sheet is comprised of two cap sheet tabs, a first of the two cap sheet tabs is located along a left edge of the cap sheet and a second of the two cap sheet tabs is located along a right edge of the cap sheet.
Minami discloses that the at least one cap sheet tab 10a, 10b (Fig. 1) on the cap sheet 1 is comprised of two cap sheet tabs 10a, 10b; a first of the two cap sheet tabs being located along a left edge of the cap sheet (Fig. 1) a second of the two cap sheet tabs is located along a right edge of the cap sheet (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have that the at least one cap sheet tab on the cap sheet is comprised of two cap sheet tabs, a first of the two cap sheet tabs is located along a left edge of the cap sheet and a second of the two cap sheet tabs is located along a right edge of the cap sheet, as disclosed by Minami, as applied to the device disclosed by Hsu in order to more easily release the desired filtering layers from any adhesive layers (see para. 32 of Minami).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 26-32 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871