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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 regard to claim 1 (and claims dependent thereupon): The claim recites an optical projection screen which is defined by measured transmitted light luminances at a 0° and 45° relative to the transparent base material, the measurements being conducted “using transmitted light from a white light source of 1100 cd/m2“. There is no indication in the claim of the incidence direction of the light being used to illuminate the screen for the measurement. Light scattering in a projection screen is however strongly dependent upon the angle of incidence of the light on the screen, and the lack of any indication of the angle of incidence of the light used during measurement renders the claim indefinite because a person having skill in the art before the time of filing would not be able to say for sure whether or not a particular screen material falls within the bounds of the claim or not as said person would not be able to definitively say whether or not a particular testing arrangement satisfies the testing conditions outlined in the claim.
Two documents provide relevant indications of the knowledge available to a person having skill in the art before the time of filing: De MeerLeer (US PGPUB 2018/0364462 A1) provides in ¶00135-0138 a succinct discussion of the mechanism of light transmission through a rear projection screen with a bulk diffusive element (a category which encompasses the present claims, in light of the specification and later claims including claims 6-7) and Wenyon (US Patent 5,796,499) provides diagrams in Figures 2A and 5B (discussed in column 6 line 34 through column 7 line 60) which serve as a good illustration of how the incident angle of light on a transmissive bulk diffusion projection screen remarkably affects the resulting light distribution on the viewing side. A bulk diffusor essentially blurs a tight “beam” of incoming light into a ”cone”-like distribution but does not substantially alter the overall direction of the initial beam, which means that the center of the resulting angular distribution of light with respect to the screen surface will be dependent upon the angle of incidence of the light onto the screen.
In the absence of an indication of the incidence angle of the light, a person having skill in the art before the time of filing would usually consider it reasonable to assume that the incident light is as close to perfectly perpendicular, or “normal”, to the screen surface as possible, similar to how the light is incident in Figure 5 of De MeerLeer. This “default” interpretation however is not consistent with the measurement details disclosed in the specification, which makes use of a “short throw” projector positioned only 15cm behind the example screen (see ¶0082-0084 of the specification as filed). Pages 27-29 of the operation manual for the noted projector indicates that the projector is configured to be positioned substantially off-axis of the screen (see below) which would cause a rather large variation in incidence angle across the screen under test.
PNG
media_image1.png
911
685
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
438
514
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally the examiner notes that the specification explicitly states that the scope of the invention is “not particularly limited” to the examples given (see ¶0077]), which effectively eliminates the ability of a person having skill in the art before the time of filing to extrapolate the testing measurement configuration from the disclosed examples. Said person thus would not be able to definitely determine the measurement conditions used, said person would not be able to definitely determine whether or not a particular screen falls (or does not fall) within the claimed ranges of measurement results or if instead the measurement was simply performed incorrectly.
Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and inherit this indefiniteness.
It is not apparent to the examiner how the claims could be amended to address this indefiniteness without the addition of new matter and while still retailing the general form of defining the invention by the luminance at frontal measured at 0° and the luminance ratio between the luminance at diagonal measured at 45°.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Harada et al (US PGPub 2009/0002817 A1, cited by applicant) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Harada.
With regard to claims 1-4 and 6-7: Harada discloses a projection screen used by being attached to an optically transparent adherend in Figure 2. As discussed in ¶0040-0042, the screen includes a transparent base (one of the two members labeled 3, note per ¶0041 one of the two members is a “transparent polymer resin sheet” and the other is a “show window glass”) and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer with inorganic fine particle light diffusive elements added (see the end of ¶0041 and ¶0042, titanium oxide particles are added).
As noted in the 112(b) rejection above, due to the lack of any indication in the claim (or concrete guidance in the specification) regarding the illumination light angle(s) under which the claimed measurements are performed it is not possible to definitely determine whether or not an arbitrary projection screen falls within the claimed ranges of luminance at frontal or luminance at diagonal. The transparent base materials used in the examples of Harada in ¶0058-0064 however match the “preferred” materials disclosed in the specification (PET film is used for the transparent base), the diffusive particles are noted as being preferably titanium oxide (see ¶0031) matching the material used in the instant specification examples 1-5 (see ¶0081 and table 1 as filed), the difference in refractive index between those particles and the adhesive resin is disclosed as being large in ¶0029 and 0031 (and example 5 of Table 1) of which the instant specification indicates allows for the claimed optical properties to be satisfied (see ¶0051 as filed), and the measured haze of the example screens fall within the instant application’s disclosed ranges (see Table 1 of Harada, particularly examples 2 and 5, and ¶0026 of the instant specification as filed) and claimed ranges (of claim 2).
In total Harada discloses a screen configuration which, as best can be determined due to the indefiniteness of the limitations regarding the luminance values and ratios, appears to be of a structure which applicant’s disclosure indicates would result in a screen having the claimed luminance profile, haze values, and transmittance, and thus Harada appears to anticipate the claims. Even if the structure is Harada does not anticipate the claim however, Harada provides further guidance indicating that the viewing angle of the screen can be readily adjusted to meet a particular desired viewing angle (see ¶ 0034) indicating that a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious adjustment of the on and off-axis luminance distribution properties the screens obvious as a matter of optimization of the screen for a particular viewing environment.
With regard to claim 8: Harada discloses the inclusion of a hard coat layer on a surface of the transparent base material opposite to the pressure sensitive adhesive layer (see ¶0036 and 0038).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harada in view of Tei (US PGPub 2015/0362728 A1).
With regard to claim 5: Harada does not disclose the use of a silicone based adhesive composition as the pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
Tei teaches in ¶ 00134-00142 that silicone based pressure sensitive adhesive compositions may be used in transparent projection screen arrangements, and further indicates that silicone based pressure sensitive adhesive compositions are preferred over other adhesive compositions because of ease of handling and excellent optical properties (see ¶0138 and ¶0140).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have found it obvious to use a silicone-based adhesive composition as the pressure sensitive adhesive in the screen in Harada because Tei indicates that such compositions are easy to handle while providing excellent optical properties suitable for use in an projection screen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Leon W Rhodes Jr whose telephone number is (571)270-5774. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/LEON W RHODES, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2852