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 1-18 are pending in the application.
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 15 is 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.
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first average pitch" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With Regards to Claim 15: Claim 15 recites the limitation --the array of light sources defines an average pitch P3 in the first direction, wherein the absorptive regions of the at least one absorptive structure defines an average pitch P2 equal to the first average pitch along the first direction--. As written, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be adequately apprised as to the intended scope of the claimed invention; because there is no description in the claim as to what said "first average pitch" is or what feature of the claimed invention it is with respect to. As such, the claim is deemed to be indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the subject matter of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, it is the decision of the examiner that so long as the light sources define P3 in the first direction and the absorptive regions define P2, the claimed limitation will be considered as taught by the reference.
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, 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 1-3, 5-7, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen et al. (US 2017/0108628 A1).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 18: Larsen discloses a light control film (LCF) with a first major surface and an opposing second major surface, and including an array of posts, arranged in two dimensions with columns and rows, of a light transmissive material with absorptive regions of an optically absorptive material disposed between the post (figures 1, 3 to 5, [0028], and [0030] of Larsen). Larsen also discloses that in one embodiment the posts are hexagonal shaped in a close packed layout (figures 1, 3 to 5, and [0031] of Larsen). Larsen further discloses that the posts have a center-to-center spacing of between 10 µm and 500 µm, a depth (ref. "D") of 10 µm to 1 mm, first and second ends with a first width (ref. "W1") of between 1 µm to 200 µm and a second width (ref. "W2") of between 2 µm to 250 µm, respectively, and that the absorptive regions have first and second end surfaces with a first wall thickness (ref. "T1") of 0.2 µm to 40 µm and second wall thickness (ref. "T2") of about 0 to 20 µm (figures 4 to 5, [0045], and [0049] of Larsen).
Larsen discloses the claimed LCF but does not explicitly recite --wherein the transmissive regions have an average maximum height Hi defined along the third direction and average median width W1 defined along the first direction, wherein the absorptive regions have an average maximum height H2 defined along the third direction and average median width W2 defined along the first direction, wherein H2/W1 is greater than or equal to 1:1, and wherein H2/W2 is greater than or equal to 20:1-- {instant claim 1} or --the light absorbing regions having an average median width W2 and an average maximum height H2 such that H2/W2 ≥ 10:1 and an average pitch distance P2 between adjacent visible light absorbing regions such that P2/H2 > 1-- {instant claim 18}. However, given the numerical values of Larsen above, a person having ordinary skill in the art could have calculated H2/W1 to be 0.08:1 [=(10 µm)/(([(200 µm)-(1 µm)]+[(250 µm)-(2 µm)])/2)] to 8.94 [=(1000 µm)/(([(200 µm)-(1 µm)]+[(250 µm)-(2 µm)])/2)], H2/W2 to be 0.66:1 [=(10 µm)/(([(40 µm)-(0.2 µm)]+[(20 µm)-(0 µm)])/2)] to 66.89 [=(1000 µm)/(([( 40 µm)-(0.2 µm)]+[(20 µm)-(0 µm)])/2)], and P2/H2 to be about 0.04 [=(10 µm)/(([(200 µm)+(40 µm)]+[(250 µm)+(20 µm)])/2)] to about 625 [=(1000 µm)/(([(1 µm)+(0.2 µm)]+[(2 µm)+(0 µm)])/2)]; which overlaps the presently claimed ranges of --H2/W1 is greater than or equal to 1:1-- {instant claim 1}, --H2/W2 is greater than or equal to 20:1-- {instant claim 1}, --H2/W2 is less than or equal to 100:1-- {instant claim 5}, --H2/W2 ≥ 10:1-- {instant claim 18}, and --P2/H2 > 1-- {instant claim 18}. Larsen differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Larsen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2: Larsen discloses that the second cross-section of the film extending along the second and third directions has alternating transmissive and absorptive regions along the second direction (figures 1 and 3 to 5 of Larsen).
Regarding Claim 3: Larsen discloses a third cross-section of the film extending along the first and second directions has the at least one absorptive structure defining a two-dimensional shape (figures 1 and 3 to 5 of Larsen).
Regarding Claim 6: Larsen discloses that the absorptive regions comprise light-absorbing or light-reflecting particles (e.g., carbon black) ([0053] of Larsen)
Regarding Claim 7: Larsen discloses that he light control film further comprising a structural refracting layer disposed on the light control layer (figure 6, [0058], and [0060] of Larsen).
Regarding Claim 11: Larsen discloses that H2/H1 is 1:1 (figure 5 of Larsen); which anticipates the claimed range of --at least 50%--. See MPEP §2131.03(I).
Regarding Claim 16: Larsen discloses a display comprising the light control film ([0058] and [0060] of Larsen).
Regarding Claim 17: Larsen discloses a light control film (LCF) with a first major surface and an opposing second major surface, and including an array of posts, arranged in two dimensions with columns and rows, of a light transmissive material with absorptive regions of an optically absorptive material disposed between the post (figures 1, 3 to 5, [0028], and [0030] of Larsen). Larsen also discloses that in one embodiment the posts are hexagonal shaped in a close packed layout (figures 1, 3 to 5, and [0031] of Larsen). Larsen further discloses that the posts have a center-to-center spacing of between 10 µm and 500 µm, a depth (ref. "D") of 10 µm to 1 mm, first and second ends with a first width (ref. "W1") of between 1 µm to 200 µm and a second width (ref. "W2") of between 2 µm to 250 µm, respectively, and that the absorptive regions have first and second end surfaces with a first wall thickness (ref. "T1") of 0.2 µm to 40 µm and second wall thickness (ref. "T2") of about 0 to 20 µm (figures 4 to 5, [0045], and [0049] of Larsen).
Larsen discloses the claimed LCF but does not explicitly recite --the light absorbing regions having an average median width W2 and an average maximum height H2 such that H2/W2 ≥ 10:1--. However, given the numerical values of Larsen above, a person having ordinary skill in the art could have calculated H2/W2 to be 0.66:1 [=(10 µm)/(([(40 µm)-(0.2 µm)]+[(20 µm)-(0 µm)])/2)] to 66.89 [=(1000 µm)/(([( 40 µm)-(0.2 µm)]+[(20 µm)-(0 µm)])/2)]; which overlaps the presently claimed range of --H2/W2 ≥ 10:1--. Larsen differs from the claims by failing to disclose an anticipatory example or a range that is sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range. However, it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Larsen, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05.
Furthermore, Larsen does not explicitly recite --for substantially Lambertian incident light in a visible wavelength range from about 380 nm to about 780 nm, an optical transmittance of the optical film versus an incident angle of the incident light has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of greater than or equal to about 80 degrees--. However, Larsen discloses the measurement of the normalized light transmission of the light control film and the measurement of luminescence versus viewing angle for the light control film; wherein the luminance profiles were measured resulting in similar; and wherein the light control film of Larsen has the same structure and materials as applicants (e.g., a plurality of alternating visible light transmissive and visible light absorbing regions disposed extending between opposing major surfaces, and H2/W2 ≥ 10:1; see (figures 1, 3 to 5, 9A, 10A, [0028]-[0031], [0043], [0045], [0049], [0051]-[0053], [0065], [0067], and [0068]) of Larsen and ([Pg. 1: li. 26 to Pg. 2: li. 15], [Pg. 4: li. 18 to Pg. 5: li. 17], [Pg. 7: li. 1-14], and [Pg. 13: li. 4-16]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the light control film of Larsen inherently possesses for substantially Lambertian incident light in a visible wavelength range from about 380 nm to about 780 nm, an optical transmittance of the optical film versus an incident angle of the incident light has a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of greater than or equal to about 80 degrees. See MPEP §2112.
Claims 8, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen et al. (US 2017/0108628 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2020/0168844 A1).
Larsen is relied upon as stated above.
Regarding Claim 12: Larsen discloses the claimed light control film, but fails to disclose --an array of light sources--.
Kim discloses a display device that has a limited viewing angle, the display device comprising a plurality of pixels in a two-directional arrangement, and a light control layer including a plurality of light absorption patterns spaced apart from each other by a predetermined distance with transparent resin layers filling the spaces therebetween (figures 1 to 4, [0009], [0026], [0030], [0038], [0074]-[0088] of Kim).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the display device of Kim with the light control layer disclosed by Larsen in order to have --an array of light sources--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the display device of Kim with the light control layer disclosed by Larsen, from the stand-point of having a display with a limited viewing angle ([0009] of Kim). (In the instant case, the light control layer disclosed by Larsen would be applied to the display device of Evans.)
Regarding Claim 8: Larsen in view of Kim discloses the light control film further comprising a multilayer optical film layer disposed on the light control layer (figures 2, 4, [0038], [0044], [0068], and [0072] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 13: Larsen in view of Kim discloses a light-emitting layer, wherein the array of light sources is at least partially disposed in the light-emitting layer, wherein the light control layer is disposed on the light-emitting layer (figures 1 to 4, [0009], [0026], [0030], [0038], [0074]-[0088] of Kim).
Regarding Claim 15: Larsen in view of Kim discloses the array of light sources defines an average pitch P3 in the first direction, wherein the absorptive regions of the at least one absorptive structure defines an average pitch P2 equal to the first average pitch along the first direction (figures 1, 3 to 5, [0028], [0030], [0031], [0043], [0049], and [0060] of Larsen; figures 1 to 4, [0009], [0026], [0030], [0038], [0074]-[0088] of Kim).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen et al. (US 2017/0108628 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2014/0355123 A1).
Larsen is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 9: Larsen fails to disclose --the light control film further comprising a color improvement layer having a polymeric matrix and particles dispersed in the polymeric matrix--.
Oh discloses a color improving film comprising a base layer (ref. #100), a high refractive light diffusion layer (ref. #110) including diffusers (ref. #111 and #113), a high refractive resin layer (ref. #120), a low refractive layer (ref. #130) and an adhesive layer (not shown) sequentially stacked, and wherein a basic resin (e.g., a transparent polymer resin) is used to form the high refractive light diffusion layer, the high refractive resin layer, and the low refractive resin layer (figure 1, [0053], and [0073] of Ho). Ho also discloses that the light diffuser (ref. #111) comprises particles ([0057] of Ho). It is also disclosed by Ho that the high refractive light diffusion layer and the high refractive resin layer can be integrated as a single unit as a layer (ref. #150) (figure 4B and [0072] of Ho).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the color improving film of Oh with the light control film disclosed by Larsen in order to have --the light control film further comprising a color improvement layer having a polymeric matrix and particles dispersed in the polymeric matrix--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the color improving film of Oh with the light control film disclosed by Larsen, from the stand-point of having a small whit angle dependency according to viewing angle with improved external light reflection ([0003] of Ho). (In the instant case the color improving film of Oh would be affixed by its adhesive layer to the light control film of Larsen.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larsen et al. (US 2017/0108628 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoon (US 2003/0086032 A1).
Larsen is relied upon as described above.
Regarding Claim 10: Larsen fails to disclose --the light control film further comprising a circular polarizer on the light control layer--.
Yoon discloses a liquid crystal display device including a liquid crystal cell (ref. #110), a collimating polarizer (ref. #120) under the liquid crystal cell, the collimating polarizer having a collimating layer (ref. #123) and a circular polarizer (ref. #122) fixed on the collimating layer, a backlight (ref. #130) under the collimating polarizer, a diffusing layer (ref. #140) over the liquid crystal cell, a retardation layer (ref. #150) over the diffusing layer, and a linear polarizer (ref. #160) over the retardation layer (figure 4, [0027], [0028], and [0040]-[0042] of Yoon).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the liquid crystal display device of Yoon and the light control film disclosed by Larsen in order to have --a circular polarizer on the light control layer--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the liquid crystal display device of Yoon and the light control film disclosed by Larsen, from the stand-point of having a liquid crystal display device with a 360 degree privacy film that confines light transmitted from a surface thereof to be within a 360° view cone centered around the normal to the surface ([0006] of Larsen) and to reduce production costs ([0043] of Yoon). (In the instant case, because Yoon discloses a collimating polarizer which comprises a collimating layer and a circular polarizer fixed thereon, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the light control film (a.k.a., light collimating film) of Larsen as the collimating layer of Yoon, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability of the intended use. See MPEP §2144.07.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Larsen et al. (US 2017/0108628 A1): Larsen teaches --a light control film--, wherein Larsen's light control film further comprises the structure --a light control film (LCF) also known as light collimating film, comprising a microstructured layer with first major surface and an opposing second major surface, the microstructured layer including an array of posts including a light transmissive material and absorptive regions including optically absorptive material disposed between the posts or in gaps between posts, the posts arranged in two dimensions with columns and rows; the array of pots include a cross-section that can be circular shaped, oval shaped, or polygon shaped (e.g., hexagon), and can be arranged in a close packed layout; wherein the spacing between posts can be any suitable distance, generally between 10 micrometers and 500 micrometers; the posts can have a draft angle α of about 5° or less, a depth "D" of 10 micrometers to 1 millimeter, a first width "W1" of 1 to 200 micrometers, a second width "W2" of 2 to 250 micrometers, a first wall thickness "T1" of 0.2 to 40 micrometers, a second wall thickness "T2" of about 0 to 20 micrometers-- (figures 1, 3 to 5, [0028], [0030], [0031], [0045], and [0049] of Larsen). However, Larsen does not teach that --H2 is less than or equal to 2 micrometers-- {instant claim 4} or --the array of light sources is at least partially disposed in the light control layer-- {instant claim 14}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Larsen with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Larsen in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights