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 .
Response to Pre-amendment
2. The present office action is made in response to the Pre-amendment filed on 06/25/2024. It is noted that in the Pre-amendment, applicant has made changes to the specification and the claims. There is not any change to be made to the abstract and the drawings.
A) Regarding to the specification, applicant has amended paragraph [0001] in page 1 of the specification; and
B) Regarding to the claims, applicant has amended claims 8-13, 17-19 and 21-22. Because there is not any claim being added/canceled into/from the application, thus the pending claims are claims 1-22.
The pending claims 1-22 were subjected to an Election/Restriction and an office action was issued on 05/06/2026.
Election/Restrictions
3. In response to the Election/Restriction mailed to applicant on 05/06/2026, applicant has made an election with traverse of Invention III in the reply filed on 05/18/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the US Publication No. 2006/0279679 does not disclose “special technical feature” recited in the present independent claim 1, see Election of 05/18/2026, pages 6-7. While applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive because the mentioned US Publication is used to reject the present independent claim 1 as provided in the present office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
4. As a result of applicant’s election and the examiner’s response as provided above, claims 1 and 11-22 are examined in the present office action, and claims 2-10 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected Inventions I-II.
Applicant should note that the non-elected claims 2-10 will be rejoined if the linking claim 1 is later found as an allowable claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The reference tilted thereof “Light Polymer Announces Next-Generation OLED Polarizer Technology” listed in the information disclosure statement, hereafter, IDS, filed on 06/25/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the words in the reference are so blurred/unclear to consider. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Drawings
6. The drawings contain five sheets of figures 1-5 were received on 06/25/2024. These drawings are objected by the examiner for the following reason(s).
7. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the references thereof “PSA-1”, “POL-1”, “QWP-1”, “QWP”, “POL-2”, “PSA-2”, “PSA-3”, “POL-3”, “QWP-2” and “BLU”, see each figures 3 and 5, which not mentioned in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
8. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because provided in the front page of the WO 2023/137128 A1 is used as an abstract of the US application serial No. 18/724,101. The mentioned abstract is objected to because it does not provide a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the invention and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
9. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
10. The lengthy specification which was amended by the pre-amendment of 06/25/2024 has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1, 11-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouderkirk et al (US Publication No. 201300010360).
Ouderkirk et al discloses a compact optical integrator.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 11, the integrator (900) as described in paragraphs [0082]-[0086] and shown in fig. 9 comprises the following features:
a1) a cover system (100, 220, 910, 220, 920) positioned at a proximal end of the integrator, and comprising a first polarization layer (190) positioned proximally to a first light-retardation layer (220);
a2) a reflective system (220, 930) positioned at a distal end of the integrator, and comprising a reflector (930) in the form of a mirror which, as understood, has a reflective surface having an impact-resistant coating ; and
a3) an air gap, i.e., the space defined between the third surface (130) of the polarizing beam splitter (100) of the cover system and front surface of the retarder (220) located above the third reflector (930) of the reflective system.
It is noted that the retarder (220) is disposed/located at a position adjacent to the polarizing beam splitter as disclosed by Ouderkirk et al.
Regarding the recitation thereof “an anti-reflective multi-layer” as recited in the claim, it is noted that the mentioned recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
b) Regarding present claim 12, the integrator (900) as disclosed by Ouderkirk et al is configured to reduce an intensity of an external light beam reflected from the reflective surface by at least about 50% due to the same structure as that recited in the present independent claim 1.
c) Regarding present claim 21, the method steps are implicitly met by the structural limitations of the integrator provided by Ouderkirk et al, see also paragraph [0084] and fig. 9, for example.
14. Claims 1, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McDonald (US Patent No. 7,008,064).
McDonald discloses a projecting device.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 11, the projecting device (100) described in columns 3-5 and shown in fig. 1 comprises the following features:
a1) a cover system (102) positioned at a proximal end of the projecting device, and comprising a first polarization layer (80) positioned proximally to a first light-retardation layer (130);
a2) a reflective system (103) positioned at a distal end of the projecting device, and comprising two microdisplays (220, 230) which as understood has a reflective surface having an impact-resistant coating; and
a3) an air gap, i.e., the space defined between the cover system (102) and the reflecting system (103).
Regarding the recitation thereof “an anti-reflective multi-layer” as recited in the claim 1, it is noted that the mentioned recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
b) Regarding present claim 12, the projecting device (100) as disclosed by McDonald is configured to reduce an intensity of an external light beam reflected from the reflective surface by at least about 50% due to the same structure as that recited in the present independent claim 1.
c) Regarding present claim 13, the reflecting system (103) further comprises a second polarization layer (250) positioned distally to the reflective surface. i.e., the reflective surface defined by the microdisplays 220/230 .
d) Regarding present claim 14, a transmittance axis of the first polarization layer (80) is approximately equal to a transmittance axis of the second polarization layer (250).
e) Regarding present claim 15, the reflective system(103) further comprises a second light-retardation layer (225 or 235) positioned between the reflective surface (220 (or 230)) and the second polarization layer (250).
f) Regarding present claim 16, the reflective system (103) further comprises a light generating layer(260) positioned distally to the second polarization layer (250).
g) Regarding present claims 18-19, the reflective system (103) further comprises a display system positioned distally to the at least one reflective surface, see column 5 which discloses that the projection lens (260) acting as a light generation layer modifies the magnification and focus of light beam (255) and guides the resulted light beam (270) to a view screen which as understood acts as an image display panel of a display system
h) Regarding present claim 20, the projecting device disclosed by McDonald is able to be used in a movement device such as a vehicle.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Fujisawa et al (US Publication No. 2006/0279679) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fujisawa et al (US Publication No. 2006/0279679) in view of Adachi et al (US Patent No. 6,469,755).
Fujisawa et al discloses a liquid crystal device.
a) Regarding present claims 1 and 11, the liquid crystal device as described in paragraphs [0025]-[0040] and shown in fig. 27 comprises the following features:
a1) a cover system (301-314) positioned at a proximal end of the device, and comprising a first polarization layer (302) positioned proximally to a first light-retardation layer (304);
a2) a reflective system (315-318) positioned at a distal end of the device, and comprising a reflector (318) which, as understood, has a reflective surface having an impact-resistant coating ; and
a3) it is noted that there is a space being provided between the cover system (301-314) and the reflective system (315-318) as shown in fig. 27, such space as understood is an air space between the two systems.
In case that it is not then a liquid crystal device having a cover system and a reflective system wherein an air gap/space being provided between the cover system and the reflective system is known to one skilled in the art as can be seen in the liquid crystal provided by Adachi et al, see columns 17-18, 20 and 25 and figs. 19 and 25-26, in particular, column20 and fig. 19. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal device provided by Fujisawa et al by providing an air gap/space between a cover system and a reflective system as suggested by Adachi to meet a particular application.
Regarding the recitation thereof “an anti-reflective multi-layer” as recited in the claim 1, it is noted that the mentioned recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
b) Regarding present claim 12, the liquid crystal device as disclosed by Fujisawa et al is configured to reduce an intensity of an external light beam reflected from the reflective surface by at least about 50% due to the same structure as that recited in the present independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 17 and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
a) The anti-reflective multi-layer system as recited in present dependent claim 17 wherein the system comprises a cover system having a polarization layer located in a proximally to a retardation layer, an reflective system having at least one reflective surface and an air gap disposed between the cover and reflective systems wherein the reflective system further comprises a second polarization layer positioned distally to the at least one reflective surface and a light generating layer disposed distally to the second polarization layer as recited in the dependent claim 17 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Patent Nos. 7,008,064 and the US publication Nos. 2006/0279679; 2010/0002296 and 2013/0010360 by the features thereof “the anti- reflective multi-layer system … at most about 25%” as recited in the claim on lines 1-4. Such a structure of the anti- reflective multi-layer system as claimed in claim and its based claims 1, 13 and 16 is not disclosed in the prior art.
b) The method for increasing transmitted light as recited in the dependent claim 22 by using an anti-reflective multi-layer system having a cover system having a polarization layer located in a proximally to a retardation layer, an reflective system having at least one reflective surface and an air gap disposed between the cover and reflective systems wherein the reflective system further comprises a second polarization layer positioned distally to the at least one reflective surface and a light generating layer disposed distally to the second polarization layer as recited in the dependent claim 22 is allowable with respect to the prior art, in particular, the US Patent Nos. 7,008,064 and the US publication Nos. 2006/0279679; 2010/0002296 and 2013/0010360 by the features thereof “generating an internal light beam … the internal light beam” as recited in the claim on lines 1-9. Such method steps by using the anti- reflective multi-layer system as claimed in the claim and its based claims 1, 13 and 16 is not disclosed in the prior art.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2316. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th: 6:00 ~ 17:00.
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, STEPHONE B. ALLEN can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/THONG Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights