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 .
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “the dimming module has a first transmittance T1 in the normal direction and a second transmittance T2 in an oblique direction, an included angle between the oblique direction and the normal direction is 60 degrees, and the head mounted electronic device satisfies: [(T1-T2)/T1]*100%<50%”.
As explained in MPEP §2173.05(g), notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail “to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim” and thus be indefinite (see In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971)). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear (see Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008), noting that the Supreme Court explained that a vice of functional claiming occurs “when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty” (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)). Furthermore, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim (citing Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc)).
In the present case, Claim 1 merely recites a goal of the invention, or a desired outcome of the invention, rather than reciting a physical structure, chemical composition, and/or arrangement of parts which accomplishes the goal or desired outcome. Specifically, Claim 1 states that a difference [T1 minus T2] in transmittance between a normal direction [T1] and an oblique direction of 60 degrees [T2] must be less than 50% of the transmittance in the normal direction [T1]. Thus, it appears that Applicant’s goal or desired outcome is a low difference in transmission for light of differing transmission angles. However, when light is transmitted through an article, the amount by which transmittance is reduced due to a change in transmission angle is a natural consequence of the number of layers, the materials, the thicknesses, and other physical structure and chemical composition of the article. Yet, in the present case, Applicant has not specified in Claim 1 any physical structure or chemical composition which will result in the desired low difference in transmittance between normal and oblique angles.
MPEP §2173.05(g) instructs patent examiners to “consider the following factors when examining claims that contain functional language to determine whether the language is ambiguous: (1) whether there is a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim; (2) whether the language sets forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or only states a problem solved or a result obtained; and (3) whether one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the claim terms what structure or steps are encompassed by the claim. These factors are examples of points to be considered when determining whether language is ambiguous and are not intended to be all inclusive or limiting.
Because Claim 1 fails to specify physical structure and/or chemical composition relating to the claimed angular light transmittance aspects, and only states a desired result or outcome, insufficient to inform one of ordinary skill in the art as to required structure or materials, Claim 1 is indefinite as presently written.
Claims 2-20 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the phrase: “wherein the third compensation film is a C-type compensation film”. However, this phrase lacks antecedent basis because there is no earlier-recited “third compensation film” in Claim 9, from which Claim 16 depends. Thus, it is unclear whether this phrase is intended to be the first instance of this claimed component or is intended to refer to an earlier-recited component. It is believed that Claim 16 may have been intended to depend from Claim 15, which does recite a “third compensation film”. For examination, the above phrase will be treated as: “further comprising a third compensation film which is a C-type compensation film”.
Claims 17-19 inherit the deficiencies of Claim 16.
Claim 20 recites the phrase: “wherein the first polarizing film and the second polarizing film have mutually perpendicular transmission axes”. However, this phrase lacks antecedent basis because there are no earlier-recited polarizing films in Claim 1, from which Claim 20 depends. Thus, it is unclear whether this phrase is intended to be the first instance of these claimed components or is intended to refer to earlier-recited components. It is believed that Claim 20 may have been intended to depend from Claim 2, which does recite first and second polarizing films. For examination, the above phrase will be treated as: “wherein a first polarizing film and a second polarizing film of the head mounted electronic device have mutually perpendicular transmission axes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-10, 12-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yan et al., US 2024/0094455 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Yan discloses: A head mounted electronic device, comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a dimming module, having a normal direction (device 10 has a normal direction, e.g., a Z-direction of an X-Y-Z spatial orientation; FIGS. 1-3 of Yan);
wherein the dimming module has a first transmittance T1 in the normal direction and a second transmittance T2 in an oblique direction, an included angle between the oblique direction and the normal direction is 60 degrees, and the head mounted electronic device satisfies: [(T1 - T2) / T1] * 100% < 50% (more brightness and color uniformity across viewing angles, and viewing angle uniformity for the system; paragraphs [0059], [0070], [0076], [0078], [0080], [0089] of Yan; also note that because the layered article of Yan satisfies all of the physical structure and chemical composition requirements of Claim 1, it is presumed that the layered article of Yan exhibits the same optical characteristics, specifically a low difference in transmission when comparing light transmitted in a zero degree [normal] direction to light transmitted in a 60 degree [oblique] direction; see rejection of Claim 1 based upon 35 USC 112(b) above; see also MPEP § 2112.01, Sections I and II, citing In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) and In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding Claim 2, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module comprises a first polarizing film, a second polarizing film (device 10 may include linear polarizer 16, as well as reflective polarizer 30 and linear polarizer 34, wherein linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis aligned with the pass axis of reflective polarizer 30, but linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis that is orthogonal to the pass axis of linear polarizer 16; paragraphs [0028], [0038], [0039] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan), a panel disposed between the first polarizing film and the second polarizing film, and a first compensation film disposed between the first polarizing film and the panel (a liquid crystal display panel 222 may be interposed between a first / front linear polarizer 214 and a second / rear linear polarizer 228 [having orthogonal pass axes and orthogonal absorption axes], and several layers may be interposed therebetween, e.g., compensating layer 226 between (A) either of first / front linear polarizer 214 or second / rear linear polarizer 228 and (B) panel 222; paragraphs [0021], [0084]-[0091] and FIGS. 8, 9 of Yan; however, note also that either of lens elements 26-1 or 26-2 may be identified as the claimed “panel”, and wherein quarter wave plate stack 116 may include plate 120 or plate 126 [either plate corresponding to the claimed “first compensation film”], or alternatively, either of quarter wave plates 18, 28 or half wave plates 138, 140 may be identified as the claimed “first compensation film”; see FIGS. 2-7 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 4, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses: wherein the first compensation film is a C-type compensation film (plate 120 may be a C-plate; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 5, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a first quarter-wave plate disposed between the first compensation film and the panel, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed between the panel and the second polarizing film (quarter wave plates 18, 28; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 6, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses: wherein the first quarter-wave plate and the second quarter-wave plate have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal; paragraph [0044] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 7, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 5 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises an anti-reflection film, and the second polarizing film is disposed between the anti-reflection film and the second quarter-wave plate (polarizers 30, 34 are between anti-reflection coating 38 and quarter wave plates 28, 18; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 8, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 2 and further discloses: wherein the first compensation film is an A-type compensation film (quarter wave plates 18, 28 or half wave plates 138, 140 may be identified as the claimed “first compensation film” and may be A-plates; paragraphs [0058], [0066] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 9, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 8 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a second compensation film disposed between the first polarizing film and the panel, and the first compensation film and the second compensation film have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal, and the optical axes of half wave plate [+A HWP] 138 and half wave plate [+A HWP] 140 may be orthogonal; paragraphs [0044], [0074], [0081] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 10, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein the second compensation film is an A-type compensation film (any of quarter wave plates 18, 28 or half wave plates 138, 140 may be A-plates; paragraphs [0058], [0066] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 12, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 10 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a first quarter-wave plate disposed between the second compensation film and the panel, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed between the panel and the second polarizing film (when half wave plate 138 is identified as the second compensation film, then quarter wave plate 28 is between half wave plate [HWP +A] 138 and lens 26-1, and quarter wave plate 18 is between lens 26-1 and polarizer 16; FIGS. 2-7 of Yan, but see especially FIGS. 2 and 7 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 13, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the first quarter-wave plate and the second quarter-wave plate have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal; paragraph [0044] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 14, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 12 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises an anti-reflection film, and the second polarizing film is disposed between the anti-reflection film and the second quarter-wave plate (polarizers 30, 34 are between anti-reflection coating 38 and quarter wave plates 28, 18; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 9 and further discloses: wherein the third compensation film is a C-type compensation film (either of C-plate 120, 126; Abstract and paragraph [0058] and FIGS. 7-9 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 17, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 16 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises a first quarter-wave plate disposed between the second compensation film and the panel, and a second quarter-wave plate disposed between the panel and the second polarizing film (when half wave plate 138 is identified as the second compensation film, then quarter wave plate 28 is between half wave plate [HWP +A] 138 and lens 26-1, and quarter wave plate 18 is between lens 26-1 and polarizer 16; FIGS. 2-7 of Yan, but see especially FIGS. 2 and 7 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 18, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 17 and further discloses: wherein the first quarter-wave plate and the second quarter-wave plate have mutually perpendicular optical axes (quarter wave plate 28 in optical system 20 may be rotated 90 degrees relative to quarter wave plate 18 in display 40, e.g., the fast axes of quarter wave plates 18 and 28 are orthogonal; paragraph [0044] and FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 19, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 17 and further discloses: wherein the dimming module further comprises an anti-reflection film, and the second polarizing film is disposed between the anti-reflection film and the second quarter-wave plate (polarizers 30, 34 are between anti-reflection coating 38 and quarter wave plates 28, 18; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Regarding Claim 20, as best understood, Yan discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the first polarizing film and the second polarizing film have mutually perpendicular transmission axes (device 10 may include linear polarizer 16, as well as reflective polarizer 30 and linear polarizer 34, wherein linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis aligned with the pass axis of reflective polarizer 30, but linear polarizer 34 may have a pass axis that is orthogonal [i.e., perpendicular] to the pass axis of linear polarizer 16; FIGS. 2-4 of Yan).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 3, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Minami et al., US 2023/0280632 A1.
Regarding Claims 3, 11 and 15, Yan discloses the limitations of Claims 2 and 10, and further discloses: a third compensation film (either of C-plate 120, 126; Abstract and paragraph [0058] and FIGS. 7-9 of Yan). Yan does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of the phase retardation, such that: wherein phase retardation [or total phase retardation] of the thickness of the compensation film(s) [first, or first and second, or first, second, and third] is between 125 nanometers (nm) and 250nm.
Minami is related to Yan with respect to multi-layered articles for head-mounted display.
Minami teaches: wherein phase retardation [or total phase retardation] of the thickness of the compensation film(s) [first, or first and second, or first, second, and third] is between 125 nanometers (nm) and 250nm (a suitable range of retardations is not less than 200 nm / 210 nm and not more than 260 nm; paragraphs [0248], [0249], [0450], [0457], [0458] and FIGS. 6, 42, 43 of Minami; the Office notes that the claim does not specify either a positive value of retardation or a negative value of retardation, and thus the claim is presumed to encompass either possibility).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the phase retardation amount of Minami for the device of Yan because such retardation enables a high Stokes parameter (i.e., close to 1, e.g., greater than 0.9) which achieves modulation over a broader bandwidth (e.g., full range of visible light) and wide viewing angle range, as taught in paragraphs [0248], [0249] and FIG. 6 of Minami.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights