DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendment dated 01/30/2026 has been received and entered. By the amendment, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s submitted prior art, Silverstein et al., US 5,032,007, in view of Handschy et al., US 5,347,378.
Regarding claim 1, Silverstein et al. disclose an optical filter (fig. 3A) comprising:
. first and second outer polarizers 31, 35 each configured to effectively polarize light in a first polarization axis (col. 5, ln 42-57)
. a first inner switchable polarizer 32 configured to alternate between a more polarizing state and a less polarizing state upon a change of an applied voltage, and wherein the change in applied voltage alters a transparency of the optical filter from a more transparent state to a less transparent state. (paragraph bridging col 4 to col 5)
Silverstein et al. fail to disclose the first inner switchable polarizer configured to polarize light in a second polarization axis effectively orthogonal to the first polarization axis when the first inner switchable polarizer is in the more polarizing state. Handschy et al. do disclose a switchable polarizer configured to polarize light in a second polarization axis effectively orthogonal to the first polarization axis when the first inner switchable polarizer is in the more polarizing state (col. 6, ln 53-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a switchable polarizer configured to polarize light in a second polarization axis effectively orthogonal to the first polarization axis when the first inner switchable polarizer is in the more polarizing state over the Silverstein et al., as shown by Handschy et al. in order to facilitate fast switching of a polarizer (col. 4, ln 56-65).
Re claim 2, wherein the first inner switchable polarizer is an absorptive polarizer, a reflective polarizer, or a combination thereof (Silverstein et al., col. 6, ln 1).
Re claim 3, wherein the first inner switchable polarizer comprises a liquid crystal cell configured to absorb light comprising a mixture of a liquid crystal host and one or more guest dyes provided between a pair of substrates (Silverstein et al., fig 3A, col. 3, ln 5-7).
Re claim 4, wherein the one or more guest dyes includes an absorption band of 175 nm or greater (Silverstein et al., col. 3, ln 5-8).
Re claim 5, the modification to Silverstein et al. discloses the claimed invention as described above except for at least one of the pair of substrates comprises a flexible material. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a flexible substrate, since it is a known practice in the display art for a flexible display device.
Re claim 6, although the modification to Silver stein et al. do not explicitly disclose the less transparent state has an optical density (OD) of at least 2 for normally incident light, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a polarizer device with less transparent state has an OD of at least 2 for normally incident light, since it is known practice in the art for guest-host device.
Re claim 7, the modification to Silver stein et al. do not disclose an acceptance aperture angle of at least 30 degrees from normally incident light, wherein an optical density rating at the acceptance aperture angle is decreased by no more than one as compared to an optical density rating of normally incident light. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ an acceptance aperture angle in a claimed range, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art
Re claim 8, the modification to Silverstein et al. would result the optical filter is chosen from the following options:(a) configured to be in the more transparent state when the voltage is zero; or (b) configured to be in the less transparent state when the voltage is zero (bridging col. 4 to col. 5).
Re claim 9, the modification to Silverstein et al. discloses the claimed invention as described above except for a flexible the optical filter. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ a flexible optical filter, since it is a known practice in the display art for a flexible display device.
Re claim 10, the modification to Silverstein et al. discloses the claimed invention as described above except for an infrared filter, an ultra-violet filter, or both. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ one of infrared filter, an ultra-violet filter, or both to broaden the application of the filter.
Re claim 11, Silverstein et al. further disclose a second inner switchable polarizer 34 as claimed (fig. 3A).
Re claim 12, wherein one or both of the first and second inner polarizers are configured to absorb or reflect a narrow-band region of visible light (col. 6, ln 1-4).
Re claim 13, the modification to Silverstein et al. would result the first range or the second range of wavelengths comprise a range within a red light spectrum, a green light spectrum, or a blue light spectrum (Handschy et al., col 4, ln 56-65).
Re claim 14, Silverstein et al. further disclose a third inner switchable polarizer 36 as claimed (fig. 3A).
Re claim 15, wherein the third range of wavelengths comprises a range within a red light spectrum, a green light spectrum, or a blue light spectrum (col. 6, ln 28-31).
Re claim 16, the modification to Silverstein et al. do not disclose one or both of the first and second outer polarizers are configured as switchable polarizers. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ one or both of the first and second outer polarizers are configured as switchable polarizers, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art
Re claim 17, Silverstein et al. further disclose an optical device comprising a goggles (col. 7, ln 23-25).
Re claims 18-19, the modification to Silverstein et al. would result first and second outer cholesteric liquid crystal (CLC) polarizers as claimed (Handschy et al., see FLC Materials).
Re claim 20, the modification to Silverstein et al. do not disclose first, second quarter waveplate as claimed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ quarter waveplates over the Silverstein et al. device, since it is a known practice in the art for light controlling over an optical filter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are as follow:
a. Silverstein does not disclose a second outer polarizer.
b. Silverstein teach aways from the claimed first and second polarization directions.
c. Handschy does not disclose a switchable polarizer.
The examiner’s responses are as follow:
a. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s viewpoint. Particularly, the examiner agrees that each cell (cell 1, cell 2, cell 3) includes only one polarizer 31/33/35; however, as a whole system, it can be including first and second outer polarizers (e.g., 31 and 35) as shown in Silverstein et al. fig. 3A.
b. The examiner agrees that Silverstein et al. do not disclose first and second polarization directions (e.g., orthogonal directions); however, the combination of Silverstein et al. and Handschy et al. would result a crossed polarization directions as stated above.
c. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show a switchable polarizer of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the polarizer preferentially absorbs or reflects one polarization of light at a greater rate than in the less-polarizing state and/or in a less polarizing state, the polarizer will effectively transmit both polarization axes of light) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). In other words, Applicant fails to establish any special definition of “switchable polarizer” in the claimed language. Therefore, the Handschy et al. polarizer would be the same the Applicant’s switchable polarizer as well. It is noted that 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).
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-20 stand as stated 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 DUNG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2297. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/DUNG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights