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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-15, received 12/15/2023, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 2/26/2024 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. It has been placed in the application file, but the crossed-through information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the optical film having an average optical reflectance of greater than about 60% in the visible wavelength and an average optical reflectance of greater than 40% in an infrared wavelength must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (see at least claim 15, which appears to be supported by specification page 6, lines 1-6). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 9 and 14-15 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.
The terms “substantially transmitting” and “substantially absorbing” in claim 9, and “substantially transmit” and “substantially reflect” in claim 14, are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is not clear what amount of transmission, absorption or reflection would be considered “substantial” and the metes-and-bounds of the claim(s) cannot be determined.
Claim 15 is rejected for inheriting the same indefiniteness of the claim from which it depends.
Claim 15 seems to conflict with claim 14 since claim 14 requires that the optical film is configured to substantially transmit the polarized image emitted by the display, whereas claim 15 requires that the optical film has an average optical reflectance of greater than about 60% in the visible wavelength. It is not clear how image light emitted by the display, which is to be viewed by the viewer and therefore is visible light, may be substantially transmitted by the optical film and simultaneously the optical film may have an average optical reflectance of greater than about 60% in the visible wavelength. Therefore, claim 15 is indefinite as the intended scope of the claim cannot be determined.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Sharp, US 6,310,673 B1, discloses stacked polymeric retarders having an optical retardance of 1000nm (col. 10, line 49 through col. 11, line 18), but does not disclose each of the polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm; and for the incident light polarized along each of mutually orthogonal in-plane first and second directions, the plurality of polymeric layers has an optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for at least one visible wavelength in the visible wavelength range and an optical reflectance of greater than about 60% for at least one infrared wavelength in the infrared wavelength range;
Hebrink et al., US 2019/0369314 A1, an optical film comprising a plurality of polymer layers numbering at least 10, wherein the plurality of polymeric layers has an optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for at least one visible wavelength in the visible wavelength range and an optical reflectance of greater than about 60% for at least one infrared wavelength in the infrared wavelength range (fig. 5, paras. [0042], [0091]-[0095]), but does not disclose that the transmission and reflection characteristics are for incident light polarized along each of mutually orthogonal in-plane first and second directions, or that for the incident light polarized along at least one of the first and second directions, the optical retarder has an optical retardance of greater than about 1000 nm at the at least one visible wavelength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8, 10-13 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claim 1 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the prior art and cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest an optical construction wherein for the incident light polarized along each of mutually orthogonal in-plane first and second directions, the plurality of polymeric layers has an optical transmittance of greater than about 60% for at least one visible wavelength in the visible wavelength range and an optical reflectance of greater than about 60% for at least one infrared wavelength in the infrared wavelength range; and for the incident light polarized along at least one of the first and second directions, the optical retarder has an optical retardance of greater than about 1000 nm at the at least one visible wavelength, as generally set forth in claim 1, the device including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claim 1.
Claims 2-8 and 10-13 depend from claim 1 and therefore are allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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 B. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 4/22/2026
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights