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.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-15 are 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 heights of the projections as a function of position 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. A Fourier transformation of an ideal regular repeating structure integrated from -∞ to ∞ would result in the classic “bed of nails” graph. On the other hand a finite sized, substantially regular structure would have the “nails” in the “bed of nails” be very narrow sinc functions. The square of a sinc function would have concentric peaks and valleys (below zero) surrounding a central peak. It is unclear if the peaks and valleys are determined before or after squaring and/or if the smaller peaks around the central peak are included in the average or not. Further, and more crucially, 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 and/or spacing of the projections 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 positioning of the projections in an x-y coordinate system that could be numerically analyzed. Given figures 13-16 it is interpreted that only the central peak is used to determine Pavg and that Vavg is determined after squaring. The lowest point in the square of sinc function is zero, i.e. Vavg=0. Since peaks are greater than zero Pavg/Vavg→∞ and satisfaction of Pavg/Vavg ≥ 5 inherent for the claimed structure.
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 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 Fourier transform frequency spectrum of heights of the projections as a function of position 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 heights of the projections as a function of position 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 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 10 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Taken in whole each of the claims 1, 3-5 and 10 (and their respective dependent claims) are further rejected as prolix. The claims contain such long recitations that the scope of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite thereby. The metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter cannot be determined as evidenced by the above rejections. See MPEP 2173.05(m). Particularly in this case, applicant has appeared to analyzed the surface data of a light control film with a two-dimensional array of projections that transmits the incident light along an axis and has an intensity profile having FWHM<~120° and has, insofar as it is understood as set forth above, claimed inherent properties regarding said light control film in the frequency/k-space domain. Further, applicant has not provided any actual function (in either spatial domain/real space or frequency domain/k-space) for a closed solution or a discussion of structural feature (such as x-y-z data map, period, etc.) that could shed any light on these issues.
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 1-5, 8-12 and 14-15 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 provide sufficient spatial domain/real space data set, e.g. positioning of projections or separation/period of projections in real space. 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 and lack of working examples (e.g. how adjusting a spatial domain/real space function or positioning of the projections in an x-y coordinate system to meet/fail conditions in frequency/k-space domain) one skilled in the art would not be able with any reasonable predictability know if they were infringing on the claimed invention, since the real space limitations of the film (i.e. claimed device) in terms of the frequency domain/k-space limitations are indeterminable from the specification (Wands factors E-G) to one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 2-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing 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 the enablement requirement, since it depends on claim 4 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Claims 11-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 14-15 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), 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), 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”), a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections heights of the projections as a function of position 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 physical property given the regular structure disclosed would result in Pavg/Vavg approaching ∞, see 112 section above for technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination of inherence that would necessarily flow from the disclosed film1), 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 Fourier transform frequency spectrum of heights of the projections as a function of position comprises two distinct peaks of the plurality of distinct peaks separated by at least 0.1 radians/micron (inherent given structure and function, see 112 section above for technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination of inherence that would necessarily flow from the disclosed film2).
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 8 Larsen discloses the light control film of claim 1, 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), 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”), a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections heights of the projections as a function of position 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 wherein the substantially light absorbing material defines light absorbing angular annular walls (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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on claim 1 now having sufficient structure claimed to perform a Fourier transformation and thus has no clarity issues, the examiner is unpersuaded. Particularly,
“wherein each of the projections is substantially light transmitting and comprises a base, a top, and one or more sides connecting the top to the base, 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”
Is not part of a Fourier transformation. Further,
“the projections heights of the projections as a function of position”
are required elements of a Fourier transformation of a surface. The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter, see MPEP 2173. In this case, the metes and bounds of “Pavg/Vavg≥5” is not clarified by noting a projection has top, base and sides with a coating. Further, insofar as the examiner can tell “Pavg/Vavg≥5” is likely inherent for the structure of a 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, as discussed in the 112 section above. However, it remains unclear if various limitations regarding the square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform (a.k.a. power spectral density), which for a regular array of projections shows sharp, dominant peak at the spatial frequency (a.k.a. “bed of nails”) corresponding to the post pitch would be (1) inherent for all light control films with the claimed structural and functional limitations or (2) it is optimizing some feature(s).
Regarding applicant’s argument that Fourier transform limitations are mathematically precise and provide clear claim boundaries, the examiner is unpersuaded. While the limits, in an of themselves, are mathematically clear, what is unclear if they are inherent physical properties for the all light control films with a two-dimensional array of projections that transmits the incident light along an axis and has an intensity profile having FWHM<~120° or if certain features/elements of said light control film are changed and if so which ones. In other words, the equations are precise but how the equations limit the invention is unclear.
Regarding applicant referring to “one skilled in the art of optics and signal processing” – the examiner contends that these are two distinct specialties and that “one skilled in the art of optics and signal processing” would be someone of extraordinary skill and not one of ordinary skill. In support of the examiner’s contention he notes optics are broadly in CPC subclass G02B and signal processing are broadly in CPC subclass G06F.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the specification page 9 as filed disclose how to make a light control film, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner agrees that the specification generally discloses how to make a light control film. However, the specification fails to disclose how to adjust such a light control film to pass (or fail) Pavg/Vavg≥5, or peaks in the frequency/k-space domain are separated by at least 0.1 radians/micron, or in the frequency/k-space domain the peaks in the plurality of the distinct peaks are regularly arranged in the (kx, ky) space, or in the frequency/k-space domain the smallest distance between the origin and the distinct peaks in the plurality of distinct peaks is greater than about 0.025 radians/micron. Particularly, there is no discussion on what features are adjusted to pass (or fail) any of these limitations in the light control film in the frequency/k-space domain. Further, the specification has not stated that meeting any of these limitation in the frequency/k-space domain solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Regarding applicant noting the specification page 13 notes a range of base and top diagonal sizes and heights and exemplar base diagonal sizes and height on page 14 sufficiently enables the limitations in the frequency/k-space domain (after a Fourier transformation), the examiner is unpersuaded. Particularly, the critical detail of the spacing/distribution/period of the projections is not present. The spacing and shapes of the peaks in the frequency/k-space domain (after a Fourier transformation) are largely determined by the spacing/distribution/period of the projections. As discussed above, a Fourier transformation of an ideal regular repeating structure integrated from -∞ to ∞ would result in the classic “bed of nails” graph. On the other hand a finite sized, substantially regular structure would have the “nails” (i.e. peaks) in the “bed of nails” (i.e. plurality of peaks) be very narrow sinc functions. Any attempt to determine if a device falls within the claimed invention would require a person of extraordinary skill and/or undue experimentation.
Regarding applicant noting the specification pages 14 notes a relationship between the general pattern of the square of the Fourier transform, the examiner is unpersuaded. This is a statement of fact. However, this fails to explain what features are adjusted to pass (or fail) any of these limitations in the light control film in the frequency/k-space domain. Further, the specification has not stated that meeting any of these limitation in the frequency/k-space domain solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose.
Regarding applicant noting the specification pages 15 notes “[t]he FWHM of the peaks can be controlled by partially disordering the arrangement of protrusions to broaden the peaks”, the examiner is unpersuaded. The examiner is confused. This FWHM is the FWHM of the peaks in the of the square of the Fourier transformation. The FWHM in claim 1 is directed to FWHM of transmitted light propagating along a transmission axis. The fact that deviations (disordering?) from an ideal regular array of projections cause a Fourier transformation to cause the “nails” (i.e. peaks) in the “bed of nails” (i.e. plurality of peaks) be very narrow sinc functions. However, this relationship provides no real guidance in making a light control film with a two-dimensional array of projections that transmits the incident light along an axis and has an intensity profile having FWHM<~120°, as claimed, and does not enable one of ordinary skill to determine if a device falls within the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Regarding applicant the examiner’s acknowledgement that commercial packages exist that can perform a Fourier transformation, supports enablement. The examiner contends that one with ordinary skill in the optical control film would not necessarily have ordinary skill in signal processing. These are two distinct specialties. Someone having skill in both arts would be someone of extraordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would need to engage in undue experimentation know if they were making a light control film with a two-dimensional array of projections that transmits the incident light along an axis and has an intensity profile having FWHM<~120° which also passes (or fails) Pavg/Vavg≥5, or peaks in the frequency/k-space domain are separated by at least 0.1 radians/micron, or in the frequency/k-space domain the peaks in the plurality of the distinct peaks are regularly arranged in the (kx, ky) space, or in the frequency/k-space domain the smallest distance between the origin and the distinct peaks in the plurality of distinct peaks is greater than about 0.025 radians/micron.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Larsen failing to disclose 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, the examiner is unpersuaded. Larsen paragraph [0053] explicitly states: “absorptive regions 340 include an optically absorptive material … optically absorptive material can be coated or otherwise provided in the gaps 325 between the posts 322” and figures 5 & 7-8 clearly shows the absorptive material covers and in contact with the entire side of the projections. Further, paragraph [0041] notes: “absorptive regions 340 can have a generally uniform wall thickness in the respective lateral planes.” Regarding applicant’s statement that: “Coating material into gaps between structures is structurally and functionally different from coating the sides of the structures.” The examiner contends that filling the gaps results in the sides of the projections being coated. The claim has no requirements that would exclude the coating from filling the gap between projections. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Larsen failing to anticipate Pavg/Vavg≥5, the examiner is unpersuaded. The regular arrangement/frequency of projections seen in figures 1, 3-8 would necessarily have a Fourier transformation graph with multiple sinc functions having extremely narrow central peaks. The lowest point (valley) in a square of a sinc function is zero. The peaks are greater than zero. Greater than zero divided by zero approaches infinity. Infinity is greater than 5. Therefore, the light control film disclosed by Larsen inherently fulfils Pavg/Vavg≥5, since said fulfilment necessarily flows from Larsen’s structure. Regarding applicant’s indicating that the clarity objection that it is unclear if fulfilment of Pavg/Vavg≥5 is inherent for all or some light control film with a two-dimensional array of projections that transmits the incident light along an axis and has an intensity profile having FWHM<~120°, mean that it is also unclear that Lawsen’s light control film inherently fulfils Pavg/Vavg≥5, the examiner is unpersuaded given the technical line of reasoning set forth above.
Regarding applicant’s argument centered on Larsen failing to anticipate the square of the Fourier transformation results in regular peaks, the examiner is unpersuaded. The regular arrangement/frequency of projections seen in figures 1, 3-8 would necessarily have a square of a Fourier transformation graph with multiple sinc functions having regularly spaced peaks separated by valleys. Therefore, the light control film disclosed by Larsen inherently fulfils the requirement that the square of the Fourier transformation results in regular peaks, since said fulfilment necessarily flows from Larsen’s structure. Regarding applicant’s indicating that the clarity objection that it is unclear if fulfilment of the square of the Fourier transformation resulting in regular peaks is inherent for all or some light control film with a two-dimensional array of projections that transmits the incident light along an axis and has an intensity profile having FWHM<~120°, mean that it is also unclear that Lawsen’s light control film inherently fulfils the limitation that the square of the Fourier transformation results in regular peaks, the examiner is unpersuaded given the technical line of reasoning set forth above.
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 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 August 22, 2026
1 See MPEP 2112.
2 See MPEP 2112.
Prosecution Insights