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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s response of 6/17/2026. In that response, Applicant amended claim 1 and cancelled claim 5.
Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement
In the 3/18/2026 response to the Election/Restriction requirement of 1/22/2026, Applicant elected Group 1, claims 1-8, without traverse. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from consideration.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/597,047 filed on 3/6/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection has been overcome.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bloom (US 2009/0237785, hereinafter, “Bloom”) in view of Takada et al. (US 2016/0221506, hereinafter, “Takada”).
Regarding claim 1, Bloom discloses a view blind check film, comprising:
a polarizing plate 105 including a polarizer (Fig. 1, [0023]); and
a reflective layer 110 arranged on at least a part of one of principal surfaces of the polarizing plate (Fig. 1, [0023]), wherein
the reflective layer 810 is arranged on a part of one of the principal surfaces of the polarizing plate 805 to define a reflective portion including the reflective layer and an exposed portion from which the polarizing plate is exposed (Fig. 8, [0047]).
It is noted that under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the reflective layer 110 is arranged on a principal surface of the polarizing plate 105. It is also noted that the “view blind check” label of the “film” is in the preamble of claim 1, thus, not given patentable weight.
With respect to the functional language of claim 1, the functional recitation “the exposed portion functions as an absorption-axis direction check portion configured to enable checking of an absorption-axis direction of a polarizer of a viewer side polarizing plate of an image display apparatus” has not been given patentable weight because it is narrative in form. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be expressed as a "means" for performing the specified function, as set forth in 35 USC § 112, 6th paragraph, and must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language. In re Fuller, 1929 C.D. 172; 388 O.G. 279.
The Office notes that the recitations after "configured" (i.e., “to enable checking of an absorption-axis direction of a polarizer of a viewer side polarization plate of an image display apparatus” are functional/intended use language. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex parte Mashim, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)). The Applicant needs to claim the physical structure of the claimed "exposed portion" that gives rise to these functions/characteristics/intended uses as these are apparatus claims.
Bloom does not disclose wherein the reflective layer is bonded to the polarizing plate via an adhesion layer.
Takada discloses a polarizer/reflecting layer used in a mirror of a vehicle, comprising a polarizing plate 11 and a mirror 12 (Fig. 2, [0020]). In one embodiment, Takada discloses that the polarizing plate and the mirror may be in contact with each other via an adhesion layer ([0033]).
Both Bloom and Takada disclose optical elements comprising a polarizer plate positioned next to a mirror.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Bloom so that the reflecting member 810 is bonded to the polarizing plate 810 via an adhesive, thus, constituting a film, as taught by Takada, instead of the use of posts 815 to connect the two optical members, for providing better visibility of an image of the image display used with the polarizer plate/mirror combination ([0033] in Takada, [0054] in Bloom). In fact, Bloom discloses that the two optical elements are separated by a short distance “z” (Fig. 1, [0023]), which would be the case when they are bonded via an adhesive layer.
Regarding claim 2, Bloom/Takada discloses the view blind check film according to claim 1, wherein the reflective layer has a total light reflectance of 80.0% or more ([0060] in Takada).
Regarding claim 3, Bloom/Takada discloses the view blind check film according to claim 2, wherein the reflective layer is a metal layer ([0042] in Bloom).
Regarding claim 4, Bloom/Takada discloses the view blind check film according to claim 2, wherein the reflective layer is a white layer ([0042] in Bloom, e.g., aluminum).
Regarding claim 6, Bloom/Takada discloses the view blind check film according to claim 1, further comprising
a transparent colored layer 615 between the polarizing plate 620 and the reflective layer 610 (Fig. 6A, [0042], e.g., silicon dioxide, whose color can be changed based on impurities, in Bloom).
Regarding claim 7, Bloom/Takada discloses the view blind check film according to claim 1.
Bloom/Takada does not disclose wherein the view blind check film has a total light reflectance of 20.0% or more.
Bloom/Takada discloses that the reflectance spectrum of the polarizer/mirror (at the output port 235) for various values of the gap between the polarizer 205 and the mirror 210, including zero gap (Fig. 2, 3, [0036] in Bloom).
The parameter of the light reflectance is result-effective variable, i.e., it is recognized to achieve a recognized result, for example, effecting the viewing of the film by the user.
Bloom/Takada discloses the claimed invention except for the claimed range for the reflectance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Bloom/Takada so that the reflectance of the polarizer/mirror film lies within the claimed range, since 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).
In the current instance, the reflectance is an art recognized result-effective variable in that it helps the viewing of the film by a user.
Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the reflectance because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process”.
Regarding claim 8, Bloom/Takada discloses an image display apparatus, comprising
the view blind check film of claim 1 ([0040] in Bloom).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Regarding independent claim 1 Applicant stated “The Office Action relies on Bloom Fig. 8 for the partial covering feature. However, Bloom's Fig. 8 structure includes a spacer, a polarizer, and a MEMS mirror. These elements are not bonded to each other to form a film, but are separate components of a microfabricated structure. Bloom also describes Fig. 8 as "a microfabricated optical wave plate and compensator constructed with silicon MEMS fabrication techniques…Bloom does not disclose a reflective layer bonded to a polarizing plate via an adhesion layer”, see p. 5 of the Remarks.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered and it is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takada.
Applicant also stated “Bloom also does not disclose a reflective layer arranged on a part of one principal surface of the polarizing plate to define a reflective portion including the reflective layer and an exposed portion from which the polarizing plate is exposed”, see p. 5 of the Remarks.
Applicant's argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. It is noted that under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation principle, the reflective layer 110 is arranged on a principal surface of the polarizing plate 105, with an exposed portion from which the polarizing plate is exposed (Fig. 1, [0023], [0047] in Bloom).
Moreover, Applicant stated “amended claim 1 defines that the exposed portion functions as an absorption-axis direction check portion configured to enable checking of an absorption-axis direction of a polarizer of a viewer side polarizing plate of an image display apparatus. This indicates that the claimed film includes an exposed portion of the polarizing plate that allows the absorption-axis direction to be checked. Bloom's Fig. 8 silicon MEMS structure does not disclose such an exposed portion for checking an absorption-axis direction”, see pp. 5-6 of the Remarks.
Applicant's argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. As discussed above, the above functional language of claim 1 has not been given patentable weight because it is narrative in form.
Applicant also stated “Bloom's polarizer and MEMS mirror are not bonded together to form a film and are not arranged to provide the exposed portion required by amended claim 1”, see p. 6 of the Remarks
As discussed above, in the modified Bloom/Takada device, the polarizer and the mirror constitute a film.
Finally, Applicant stated “Takada does not cure the above deficiencies of Bloom. The Office Action relies on Takada for the reflectance limitations of claims 2-4. However, Takada does not disclose or suggest the film structure of claim 1. Therefore, Bloom in view of Takada does not render obvious amended claim 1 or the claims depending therefrom”, see p. 6 of the Remarks.
Applicant's argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive. As discussed above, it is the combination of Bloom and Takada that is used to reject amended claim 1, not Bloom solely.
The rejection of claim 1 and its dependents is maintained for the above reasons.
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 LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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 on 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights