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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the semi-transparent component, the louver film, and a linear polarizer in the stated order" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which Claim 13 depends, recites the limitation, “a first linear polarizer or louver film”, and thus, both components are not recited in tandem. Therefore, Claim 13 is indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to interpret Claim 13, based on the recitation of Claim 1. For the purposes of examination, Examiner interprets Claim 13 according to this interpretation, “wherein the optical film includes the semi-transparent component, the louver film or the linear polarizer in the stated order”.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 13 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamanaka et al. (US 2021/0178733).
Regarding claim 1, Yamanaka discloses a display device (see figure 9, for instance) comprising: an optical film (50); and a display panel (41) placed closer to a back surface side than the optical film (50) is, the optical film (50) including a colored semi-transparent component (53) and a first linear polarizer or louver film (55) being placed closer to the back surface side than the colored semi-transparent component (53) is and being integrated with the colored semi-transparent component (see figure 9), the louver film (55) including a light absorptive part (55) and a light transmissive part (57) arranged in a pattern, the semi-transparent component (53) being configured to transmit part of light incident from the back surface side (at oblique angles from 41) and reflect part of light incident from a viewer side opposite to the back surface side ([0100], “glitter pigment such as silver pigment”).
Regarding claim 4, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the light absorptive part (55) and the light transmissive part (57) of the louver film are alternately arranged in a plan view.
Regarding claim 5, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein a transmittance of the semi-transparent component (53) for light incident from the back surface side is 50% or higher ([0089], “The reflectance of the decorative sheet 50 is preferably 3% or more and 80% or less, and more preferably 5% or more and 80% or less”).
Regarding claim 6, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the semi-transparent component (53) includes a pigment that reflects light ([0100]).
Regarding claim 13, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the optical film includes the semi-transparent component (53), the louver film (55), and a linear polarizer in the stated order (see USC 35 § 112 rejection, above).
Regarding claim 15, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the display panel (41) in a plan view includes a display region and a frame region (within circumference of 30) surrounding the display region, and the display panel in a plan view includes a light blocking component (35; [0036]) in a region overlapping the frame region.
Regarding claim 16, Yamanaka discloses an optical film (see figure 9, for instance) comprising: a colored semi-transparent component (53) and a first linear polarizer or louver film (55) being placed closer to a back surface side than the colored semi-transparent component (53) is and being integrated with the colored semi-transparent component (see figure 9), the louver film including a light absorptive part (53) and a light transmissive part (57) arranged in a pattern, the semi-transparent component (53) being configured to transmit part of light incident from the back surface side (at oblique angles from 41) and reflect part of light incident from a viewer side opposite to the back surface side ([0100], “glitter pigment such as silver pigment”).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2020/0012150).
Regarding claim 2, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1. However, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the display panel includes a second linear polarizer placed closer to the viewer side, and a transmission axis of the first linear polarizer is parallel to a transmission axis of the second linear polarizer.
Watanabe discloses a display device (see figure 5, for instance), wherein the display panel (110) includes a second linear polarizer (113b) placed closer to the viewer side, and a transmission axis of the first linear polarizer (123c) is parallel to a transmission axis of the second linear polarizer (113b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second linear polarizer in the order taught by Watanabe in the device of Yamanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device having an excellent designability and capable of displaying chromatic colors and patterns in the non-display state of a display panel, as taught by Watanabe ([0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1. However, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the first linear polarizer is an absorptive linear polarizer.
Watanabe discloses a display device (see figure 5, for instance), wherein the first linear polarizer (113b) is an absorptive linear polarizer ([0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first linear polarizer in the order taught by Watanabe in the device of Yamanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device having an excellent designability and capable of displaying chromatic colors and patterns in the non-display state of a display panel, as taught by Watanabe ([0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1. However, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the optical film further includes an antireflective layer placed closer to the back surface side than the first linear polarizer or the louver film is.
Watanabe discloses a display device (see figure 11, for instance), wherein the optical film further includes an antireflective layer (522) placed closer to the back surface side than the first linear polarizer or the louver film (523c) is.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the antireflective layer in the order taught by Watanabe in the device of Yamanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device having an excellent designability and capable of displaying chromatic colors and patterns in the non-display state of a display panel, as taught by Watanabe ([0046]).
Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Takada et al. (US 2018/0292710).
Regarding claim 7, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1. However, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the optical film further includes a first λ/4 waveplate placed closer to the back surface side than the first linear polarizer is.
Takada discloses a display device (see figure 2, for instance), wherein the optical film further includes a first λ/4 waveplate (50) placed closer to the back surface side than the first linear polarizer (60) is.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the first λ/4 waveplate structure taught by Takada in the device of Yamanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a display device having an excellent balance between the brightness of the display screen of the apparatus and the visual step thereof, as taught by Takada ([0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Yamanaka in view of Takada discloses the display device according to claim 7, wherein a transmission axis of the first linear polarizer (Takada 60) and a slow axis of the first λ/4 waveplate form an angle of substantially 45° (Takada [0034]).
Regarding claim 9, Yamanaka in view of Takada discloses the display device according to claim 7, wherein the display panel includes a second λ/4 waveplate (Takada 70) and a second linear polarizer (Takada 30) sequentially from the viewer side (from Takada element 101 of figure 2), and a transmission axis of the second linear polarizer and a slow axis of the second λ/4 waveplate form an angle of substantially 45° (Takada [0034]), and a slow axis of the first λ/4 waveplate and the slow axis of the second λ/4 waveplate are orthogonal to each other (Takada [0024]).
Claim(s) 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamanaka in view of Yoneyama et al. (US 2006/0182902).
Regarding claim 10, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1. However, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the first linear polarizer is a coating-type polarizing layer including dichroic molecules, and the coating-type polarizing layer including dichroic molecules is formed on the semi-transparent component.
Yoneyama discloses a display device, wherein the first linear polarizer is a coating-type polarizing layer including dichroic molecules ([0016]), and the coating-type polarizing layer including dichroic molecules is formed on the semi-transparent component ([0216]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a first linear polarizer of coating-type as taught by Yoneyama in the device of Yamanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high dichromatic properties, and polarizing elements excellent in heat resistance, light fastness and polarizing performance, as taught by Yoneyama ([0013]).
Regarding claim 11, Yamanaka discloses the display device according to claim 1. However, Yamanaka does not expressly disclose wherein the first linear polarizer is a linear polarizer that includes a polarizing film including dichroic molecules and a pair of protective films between which the polarizing film including dichroic molecules is held.
Yoneyama discloses a display device, wherein the first linear polarizer is a linear polarizer that includes a polarizing film including dichroic molecules ([0016]), and a pair of protective films between which the polarizing film including dichroic molecules is held ([0213]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a first linear polarizer of the structure as taught by Yoneyama in the device of Yamanaka. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain high dichromatic properties, and polarizing elements excellent in heat resistance, light fastness and polarizing performance, as taught by Yoneyama ([0013]).
Regarding claim 12, Yamanaka in view of Yoneyama discloses the display device according to claim 11, wherein the optical film further includes a transparent film (Yamanaka 57) on a surface opposite to the surface on which the first linear polarizer ([0016], [0213] Yoneyama) is placed, and a difference in coefficient of linear expansion between the transparent film and one of the protective films is 30×10−6/K or Less (PMMA of Yamanaka [0046]; versus polyimide of Yoneyama [0213])1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 2/12/2026
1 See values from the table for reference: https://matmake.com/properties/thermal-expansion-of-polymers-and-plastics.html