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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 9-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/25/2026.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 7, 11, 14, and 15 were preliminarily amended. Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from consideration by Applicant’s 6/25/2026 response to the 5/1/2026 Requirement for Restriction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya (JP 2010224427 A, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Furuya discloses a light control film comprising a two-dimensional array of projections arranged across the light control film (Fig. 3, “FIG. 3 shows the altitude of the fine uneven surface of the antiglare film of the present invention as a two-dimensional discrete function h (x, y). In FIG. 3, the altitude is indicated by a gradation of white and black. The discrete function h (x, y) shown in FIG. 3 has 512 × 512 values, and the horizontal resolutions Δx and Δy are 1.66 μm.”), a square of a magnitude of a Fourier transform frequency spectrum of the projections comprising an annular continuous peak and a corresponding annular continuous full width (FW) at 15% maximum wherein the peak and the FW vary by no more than about respective factors of 10 and 3 along the annular continuous peak (Figs. 8 and 9, the latter explicitly showing the energy spectrum varying from about 10 to 4; p. 8, showing the integral Fourier transform Equation 1, and immediately subsequent ¶33, “The resulting two-dimensional function H (f .sub.x, f .sub.y) by squaring the energy spectrum .sup..sub.H 2 (f x, f y ) can be obtained. The energy spectrum .sup..sub.H 2 (f x, f y ) represents the spatial frequency distribution of the fine uneven surface of the antiglare film.”).
Furuya does not explicitly show a corresponding annular continuous full width (FW) at 15% maximum wherein FW vary by no more than about respective factors of 10 and 3 along the annular continuous peak.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefit of optimizing the FW include optimizing the imaging performance, reducing glare and thus degradation of the image (e.g. Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the FW along the annular continuous peak and thus reduced glare and preventing degradation of the image.
Regarding claim 2, Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 1, and further discloses 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 (Fig. 3, “In FIG. 3, the altitude is indicated by a gradation of white and black. The discrete function h (x, y) shown in FIG. 3 has 512 × 512 values, and the horizontal resolutions Δx and Δy are 1.66 μm.”; it is considered that high points next to low points viz. projections thus disclose the claimed features).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 2, and Furuya further discloses further comprising a continuous land layer disposed on the base-side of the projections and connecting the projections, the projections and the land layer having a same substantially light transmitting composition (“Furthermore, in the embossing method, a mold having a fine uneven surface is manufactured using the above-described pattern, the uneven surface of the manufactured mold is transferred onto a transparent support, and then the transparent support having the uneven surface transferred is obtained.”).
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuya as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Schmidt (WO 2020026139 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 2, but does not explicitly show 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.
Schmidt, drawn to an analogous light control film (Fig. 3b), explicitly shows 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 (see the fabrication process of 3a-3f, successing absorber coatings that surround the projections 330, then the mesas and trenches are removed to provide an absorptive louver around each projection 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the absorber of Schmidt to coat the projections of Furuya and thus prevent unwanted crosstalk between incident light in a given angular range, e.g. for the purpose of privacy.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 2, and further discloses wherein no more than about 20% of a total area of the tops of the projections is covered by any substantially light absorbing material.
Schmidt, drawn to an analogous light control film (Fig. 3b), wherein no more than about 20% of a total area of the tops of the projections is covered by any substantially light absorbing material (see the fabrication process of 3a-3f, successing absorber coatings that surround the projections 330, then the mesas and trenches are removed entirely to provide an absorptive louver around each projection 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the absorber of Schmidt to coat the projections of Furuya and thus prevent unwanted crosstalk between incident light in a given angular range, e.g. for the purpose of privacy.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 7, but does not explicitly show wherein no more than about 20% of regions of the land layer between the projections is covered by any substantially light absorbing material.
Schmidt, drawn to an analogous light control film (Fig. 3b), wherein no more than about 20% of regions of the land layer between the projections is covered by any substantially light absorbing material (see the fabrication process of 3a-3f, successing absorber coatings that surround the projections 330, then the mesas and trenches are removed entirely to provide an absorptive louver around each projection 330).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the absorber of Schmidt to coat the projections of Furuya and thus prevent unwanted crosstalk between incident light in a given angular range, e.g. for the purpose of privacy.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Furuya as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Freier (US 10566391 B2, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 3, and explicitly shows the absorber provided on the sidewalls only as discussed above, but does not explicitly show wherein when the light control film is viewed from the tops-side of the projections, the top of each of the projections is surrounded by a different corresponding closed annulus, and wherein each of the closed annuli is completely surrounded by a same common region.
Freier explicitly shows an annular backfill around circular projections (Figs. 14, 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter the shape of the backfill of the modified Furuya from rectangular to annulus and thus prevent unwanted crosstalk in an azimuthal range, e.g. for the purpose of privacy.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Furuya teaches the light control film of claim 4, and generally discloses that the light control film is for privacy viewing (i.e., visible light ranges that are exceptionally well known to cover about 380-700nm), but does not explicitly show 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.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Benefit of optimizing the claimed transmission ranges include maximal privacy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the transmission ranges of the modified Furuya and blocked as much light as possible from unwanted viewing, while maximizing the light transmitted for private viewing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20120026592 A1 discloses an optical layer of annular absorptive baffles
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 57127012584. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights