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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 28, 2024 and December 11, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 “a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprising a plurality of distinct peaks separated by one or more valleys, the peaks and the one or more valleys having respective averages Pavg and Vavg, Pavg/Vavg > 5” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if Pavg/Vavg > 5 is inherent for a 2D array of projections that transmits light with a FWHM of 120° or if it is adjusting the relative height of the peaks and valleys to find a working/optimal range. The specification repeats this language/assertion and has no actual function (in either spatial domain/real space or frequency domain/k-space) for a closed solution or height data in an x-y coordinate system that could be numerically analyzed. For purposes of examination the examiner assumes that sufficient structural and functional limitations have been recited to make satisfaction of Pavg/Vavg > 5 inherent.
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 3 “wherein along at least one angular direction, the square of the magnitude of the Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprises two distinct peaks of the plurality of distinct peaks separated by at least 0.1 radians/micron” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if peaks separated by at least 0.1 radians/micron is inherent for a 2D array of projections that transmits light with a FWHM of 120° or if it is adjusting some structural feature to find a working/optimal range. The specification repeats this language/assertion and has no actual function (in either spatial domain/real space or frequency domain/k-space) for a closed solution or a discussion of what structural feature (in a data set) that could be adjusted to achieve said peak separation. For purposes of examination the examiner assumes that sufficient structural and functional limitations have been recited to achieve said peak separation inherently.
Regarding claim 4 “wherein the projections are arranged in an (x, y) space and the square of the magnitude of the Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections is in a corresponding (kx, ky) space, where kx and ky are corresponding spatial frequencies of the respective x and y directions, and wherein the peaks in the plurality of the distinct peaks are regularly arranged in the (kx, ky) space” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the regular arrangement of peaks in k-space is inherent for a 2D array of projections that transmits light with a FWHM of 120° or if it is adjusting some structural feature to find a working/optimal range. The specification repeats this language/assertion and has no actual function (in either spatial domain/real space or frequency domain/k-space) for a closed solution or a discussion of what structural feature (in a data set) that could be adjusted to achieve a regular arrangement of peaks in k-space. For purposes of examination the examiner assumes that sufficient structural and functional limitations have been recited to achieve a regular arrangement of peaks in k-space inherently.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since it depends on claim 4 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 5 “wherein for an origin in the (kx, ky) space where kx and ky are each zero, a smallest distance between the origin and the distinct peaks in the plurality of distinct peaks is greater than about 0.025 radians/micron” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the smallest distance between the k-space origin and a peak is >0.025 radians/micron is inherent for a 2D array of projections that transmits light with a FWHM of 120° or if it is adjusting some structural feature to find a working/optimal range. The specification repeats this language/assertion and has no actual function (in either spatial domain/real space or frequency domain/k-space) for a closed solution or a discussion of what structural feature (in a data set) that could be adjusted to achieve smallest distance between the k-space origin and a peak is >0.025 radians/micron. For purposes of examination the examiner assumes that sufficient structural and functional limitations have been recited to achieve the smallest distance between the k-space origin and a peak is >0.025 radians/micron inherently.
Regarding claim 10 “a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprising a plurality of regularly arranged distinct peaks” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if regular spacing of peaks in k-space is inherent for a 2D array of projections that transmits light with a FWHM of 120° or if it is adjusting some structural feature to find a working/optimal range. The specification repeats this language/assertion and has no actual function (in either spatial domain/real space or frequency domain/k-space) for a closed solution or a discussion of what structural feature (in a data set) that could be adjusted to achieve a regular spacing of peaks in k-space. For purposes of examination the examiner assumes that sufficient structural and functional limitations have been recited to achieve a regular spacing of peaks in k-space inherently.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 10 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3-5 and 10 have limitations regarding a Fourier transformation (see above), which is not enabled by the specification. The claimed invention is a 2D array of projections that transmits light with a FWHM of 120° (e.g. see figures 1A, 6, 7-12B) (Wands factors A-B). The specification fails to provides spatial domain/real space function to describe the surface topography. The specification also fails to provides spatial domain/real space data set, e.g. height data in an x-y coordinate system. One skilled in the art could perform a Fourier transformation to a function (describing the surface topography) or preform a numerical analysis to a data set (e.g. using FFT algorithm), which is commercially available (Wands factors C-D). However, given the lack of direction (e.g. which parameters in real space shift claimed k-space parameters), lack of working examples (e.g. spatial domain/real space function or data set of height data in an x-y coordinate system) one skilled in the art would not be able with any reasonable predictably know if they were infringing on the claimed invention, since the frequency domain/k-space limitations are indeterminable from the specification (Wands factors E-G). Considering all the evidence, as a whole, the examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would need to engage in undue experimentation to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (Wands factor H), see MPEP 2164.01(a).
Claims 2-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement, since it depends on claim 4 and therefore has the same deficiencies.
Claims 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement, since they depend on claim 10 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Larsen et al. US Patent Application Publication 2017/0108628, of record.
Regarding claim 1 Larsen discloses a light control film (title e.g. figures 3-5 light control film 300) comprising a two-dimensional array of projections arranged across the light control film (e.g. array of posts 322), a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprising a plurality of distinct peaks separated by one or more valleys, the peaks and the one or more valleys having respective averages Pavg and Vavg, Pavg/Vavg > 5 (inherent given structure and function as set forth in 112 section above), such that when light from a substantially Lambertian light source is incident on the light control film, the light control film transmits the incident light with the transmitted light propagating along a transmission axis and having an intensity profile having a full width at half maximum (FWHM) of less than about 120 degrees in each cross-section of the intensity profile that comprises the transmission axis (e.g. see figures 9A & 10A).
Regarding claim 2 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 1, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein the intensity profile has different FWHMs in different cross-sections of the intensity profile that comprise the transmission axis (inter alia paragraph [0035] “viewing cutoff angle φ″ can vary between 30° to 45° as the azimuthal angle varies from 0 to 360 degrees”).
Regarding claim 3 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 1, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein along at least one angular direction, the square of the magnitude of the Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprises two distinct peaks of the plurality of distinct peaks separated by at least 0.1 radians/micron (inherent given structure and function as set forth in 112 section above).
Regarding claim 4 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 1, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein the projections are arranged in an (x, y) space and the square of the magnitude of the Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections is in a corresponding (kx, ky) space, where kx and ky are corresponding spatial frequencies of the respective x and y directions, and wherein the peaks in the plurality of the distinct peaks are regularly arranged in the (kx, ky) space (inherent given structure and function as set forth in 112 section above).
Regarding claim 5 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 4, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein for an origin in the (kx, ky) space where kx and ky are each zero, a smallest distance between the origin and the distinct peaks in the plurality of distinct peaks is greater than about 0.025 radians/micron (inherent given structure and function as set forth in 112 section above).
Regarding claim 6 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 1, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein each of the projections is substantially light transmitting (inter alia paragraph [0037] “array of posts 322 … includes a light transmissive material”) and comprises a base (e.g. second end 328), a top (e.g. first end 324), and one or more sides connecting the top to the base (e.g. sloped side surfaces 323).
Regarding claim 7 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 6, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein, for each of at least 50% of the projections, at least 80% of a total area of the one or more sides of the projection is coated with a substantially light absorbing material (e.g. absorptive regions 340 & paragraph [0053] “340 include an optically absorptive material that can be any suitable material that functions to absorb or block light at least in a portion of the visible spectrum. In some embodiments, the optically absorptive material can be coated or otherwise provided”).
Regarding claim 8 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 7, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein when the light control film is viewed from the tops-side of the projections (e.g. figures 4 & 7), the top of each of the projections is surrounded by a different corresponding closed annulus (e.g. see figures 4 & 7), and wherein each of the closed annuli is completely surrounded by a same common region (e.g. see figures 1, 4 & 7).
Regarding claim 9 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 8, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein for substantially normally incident light and a visible wavelength range from about 420 nm to about 680 nm, the light control film has average optical transmissions of: greater than about 60% in regions of the light control film corresponding to the tops of the projections; less than about 20% in regions of the light control film corresponding to the closed annuli; and greater than about 60% in regions of the light control film corresponding to the same common region (implicit given the structure made of “a light transmissive material” & “optically absorptive material” and the total transmission seen in figure 10A).
Regarding claim 10 Larsen discloses a light control film (title e.g. figures 3-5 light control film 300) comprising a two-dimensional array of projections arranged across the light control film (e.g. 322), a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprising a plurality of regularly arranged distinct peaks separated by one or more valleys (inherent given structure and function as set forth in 112 section above), such that when light from a substantially Lambertian light source is incident on the light control film, the light control film transmits the incident light with the transmitted light propagating along a transmission axis and having an intensity profile having a full width at half maximum of less than about 120 degrees in each cross-section of the intensity profile that comprises the transmission axis (e.g. see figures 9A & 10A).
Regarding claim 11 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 10, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein each of the projections is substantially light transmitting and comprises a base (e.g. 328), a top (e.g. 324), and one or more sides connecting the top to the base (e.g. 323), wherein for each of at least 50% of the projections, the one or more sides of the projection is coated with a substantially light absorbing material to define a light absorbing angular wall (e.g. 340 & paragraph [0053]), each of the annular walls spanning a total azimuthal angle of at least 350 degrees and defining a hollow interior that extends between opposing first and second open ends of the annular wall (e.g. see figures 4-5 & 7), the wall of each of the annular walls having an average thickness of less than about 2 microns (e.g. paragraph [0049] “340 can have the wall thickness “T1 ” of 0.2 to 40 micrometers”), such that a total projected area of the annular walls onto a major surface of the light control film is less than about 40% of a total area of the major surface (e.g. see figures 4 & 7).
Regarding claim 12 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 11, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein each of the annular walls makes an angle (e.g. draft angle a) of less than about 10 degrees with a normal to the light control film (e.g. paragraph [0044] “a can be about 5° or less).
Regarding claim 13 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 10, as set forth above. Larsen further discloses wherein each of the projections is substantially light transmitting (inter alia paragraph [0037] “array of posts 322 … includes a light transmissive material”) and comprises a base (e.g. 328), a top (e.g. 324), and one or more sides connecting the top to the base (e.g. 323), and wherein, for each of at least 50% of the projections, at least 80% of a total area of the one or more sides of the projection is coated with a substantially light absorbing material (e.g. absorptive regions 340 & paragraph [0053] “340 include an optically absorptive material that can be any suitable material that functions to absorb or block light at least in a portion of the visible spectrum. In some embodiments, the optically absorptive material can be coated or otherwise provided”).
Regarding claims 14-15, the limitations of claims 14-15 are the same as the limitations of claims 8-9, respectively, and claims 14-15 are rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Halverson et al. US Patent Application Publication 2014/0204464; in regards to a similar invention (e.g. abstract see figures 1-2) with a FWHM<120° (see figure 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571) 272-2333. 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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 March 24, 2026