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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Preliminary Amendment
The amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification in the submission dated 06/28/2024 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 11 and 13 are amended. Claims 17-20 are new.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “higt index material” in Fig. 5 should be “high index material”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 114077149 A (hereinafter referred to as Liu, published 2022-02-22), and further in view of Zhang et al., US 2022/0390823 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Zhang).
As to claim 1, Liu teaches (Figs. 1-3, and 7) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (2, “the projection screen 2,” para [0041], Figs. 1-3 and 7) with a nano-scale microcrystalline structure (25, “diffusion particles 25… titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles… the particle size of the diffused particles 25 can be, for example, between 0.1 micrometers (µm) and 10 micrometers,” TiO2 is a crystalline inorganic compound, thus the diffusion particles 25 are nano-scale microcrystalline structures, para [0050], Fig. 7), comprising:
embossing a transparent adhesive or a transparent plastic body (21, “first light-transmitting body 21 may be polyethylene terephthalate (PET), optical resin, or acrylic (PMMA), polyurethane (PU), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), etc.,” para [0046], Fig. 7) on a carrier substrate layer (1) (23, “second light-transmitting body 23,” para [0046], Fig. 7) by a pressing roll or a mold (S2, the optical structures are formed by mold roller B, paras [0074] and [0082], Fig. 18), such that the transparent adhesive or the transparent plastic body is attached as an undulating concave-convex surface (212, “multiple light guides 212 are arranged to protrude from the main body 211,” the protrusions are an undulating concave-convex surface as shown in Figs. 2-3 and 7, para [0041], Fig. 7) to the carrier substrate layer (1) (23, “second light-transmitting body 23,” para [0046], Fig. 7) to form a structural layer (2) (21, “first light-transmitting body 21,” para [0046], Fig. 7);
adsorbing a reflective metal (22, “the reflective layer 22… made of metals such as aluminum, copper, silver, and chromium,” para [0053], Fig. 7) on a surface of the structural layer (2) (2121, “a reflective layer 22 is then formed on the exposed surface 2121 of the plurality of light guides 212,” para [0048], Fig. 7) through printing, spray-coating, deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating (S4, “a reflective layer is formed by coating a reflective colloid,” para [0076], Fig. 16) to form a reflective layer (3) (22, “the reflective layer 22,” para [0053], Fig. 7) on the structural layer (2) (2121, the reflective layer 22 is formed on the first light-transmitting body 21, para [0048], Fig. 7); and
attaching a nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the reflective layer (3) (22, 25, diffusion particles are disposed on the reflective layer 22, para [0052], Fig. 7), wherein the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) comprises two or more transparent three-dimensional crystals (22, 25, multiple diffusion particles are disposed on the reflective layer 22, para [0052], Fig. 7).
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method of a projection screen wherein the nano-scale microcrystal layer is attached to a surface through coating or spray-coating.
Liu and Zhang are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Zhang teaches (Figs. 1, 2, and 8) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (100, “a transparent display screen 100,” para [0026], Fig. 1) with a nano-scale microcrystalline structure (20, “a surface diffusion layer 20,” para[0062], Fig. 2) wherein the nano-scale microcrystal layer is attached to a surface through coating or spray-coating (20, S312, “In step S312, at least a portion of the prism surface 11 is coated with the mixture by spray coating or roller coating to form the surface diffusion layer 20,” para [0062], Fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Liu with the method wherein the nano-scale microcrystal layer is attached to a surface through coating or spray-coating of Zhang, since the process of coating the surface diffusion layer is simple and easy to operate, the manufacturing process for the transparent projection screen is simple and manufacturing costs are reduced (para [0047]).
As to claim 2, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the structural layer (2) presents as the undulating concave-convex surface, and is composed of irregular arrays of continuous curved surfaces with different curvatures and different heights (21, 212, “the dimensions of the multiple light guides 212 are not exactly the same… multiple light guides 212 of different sizes may be randomly formed… the height of each light guide 212 can be between 5 micrometers (µm) and 500 micrometers,” para [0042], Figs. 2-3, and 7).
As to claim 3, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method of claim 2, wherein a curved surface height of the structural layer (2) is in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm (21, 212, “the dimensions of the multiple light guides 212 are not exactly the same… multiple light guides 212 of different sizes may be randomly formed… the height of each light guide 212 can be between 5 micrometers (µm) and 500 micrometers,” para [0042], Figs. 2-3, and 7).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the curved surface height of the structural layer such that the height is in a range of 10 μm to 100 μm, which overlaps the disclosed range of 5 μm to 500 μm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the curved surface height of the structural layer is an art recognized results effective variable in that the problem of mura (overlapping patterns) on the projection screen is greatly improved as taught by Liu (para [0042]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the curved surface height of the structural layer because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the problem of mura (overlapping patterns) on the projection screen is greatly improved (para [0042]).
As to claim 4, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method of claim 1, wherein the transparent three-dimensional crystals in the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) each are a tiny crystal material at a nano/micro-scale or a nanoparticle with a crystal structure, and have a size of 100 nm to 300 nm (25, “diffusion particles 25… titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles… the particle size of the diffused particles 25 can be, for example, between 0.1 micrometers (µm) and 10 micrometers,” TiO2 is a crystalline inorganic compound, thus the diffusion particles 25 are nano-scale microcrystalline structures between 100 nm to 1,000 nm, para [0050], Fig. 7).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the nano/micro-scale crystal structure such that the crystal size is between 100 nm to 300 nm, which overlaps the disclosed range of 0.1 µm to 100 µm (100 nm to 1,000 nm), since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the size of the nano/micro-scale crystal structures is an art recognized results effective variable in that the diffusion effect of ambient light is improved as taught by Liu (para [0050]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the size of the nano/micro-scale crystal structures because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because the diffusion effect of ambient light is improved (para [0050]).
As to claim 5, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method of claim 4, wherein a material of the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) is one or a mixture of two to seven selected from the group consisting of zinc oxide, nano-kaolin, titanium dioxide, montmorillonite, silver, graphene, and alumina (25, “diffusion particles 25… titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles”, para [0050], Fig. 7).
As to claim 7, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 4, wherein the transparent three-dimensional crystals are cubic nanocrystals, cuboid nanocrystals, cylindrical nanocrystals, triangular nanocrystals, semi-cylindrical nanocrystals, or polyhedral nanocrystals (25, the diffusion particles 25 are titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles, TiO2 is a crystalline inorganic compound with polyhedral crystal forms including cubic, tetragonal, orthorhombic, and monoclinic, para [0050], Fig. 7).
As to claim 13, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Liu further teaches a projection screen with a nano-scale microcrystalline structure manufactured by the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein the projection screen (2, “the projection screen 2,” para [0041], Figs. 1-3 and 7) with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure (25, “diffusion particles 25… titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles… the particle size of the diffused particles 25 can be, for example, between 0.1 micrometers (µm) and 10 micrometers,” TiO2 is a crystalline inorganic compound, thus the diffusion particles 25 are nano-scale microcrystalline structures, para [0050], Fig. 7) comprises the carrier substrate layer (1) (23, “second light-transmitting body 23,” para [0046], Fig. 7), the structural layer (2) (21, “first light-transmitting body 21,” para [0046], Fig. 7), the reflective layer (3) (22, “the reflective layer 22,” para [0053], Fig. 7), and the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) (25, diffusion particles are disposed on the reflective layer 22, para [0052], Fig. 7) that are stacked sequentially from bottom to top (stacked from bottom to top as shown in Fig. 7).
As to claim 15, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Liu further teaches the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure according to claim 13, wherein the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has an effective scattering angle (25, the diffusion particles 25 produce a scattering effect, para [0052], Fig. 7).
Liu does not teach the projection screen wherein the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has an effective scattering angle of 44°.
Liu and Zhang are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Zhang teaches (Figs. 1, 2, and 8) a projection screen (100, “a transparent display screen 100,” para [0026], Fig. 1) with a nano-scale microcrystalline structure (20, “a surface diffusion layer 20,” para[0062], Fig. 2) wherein the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has an effective scattering angle of 44° (20, “a scattering angle of the surface diffusion layer 20 is controlled to be within a range of 10° to 40°,” para [0045], Fig. 7).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a range of 10° to 40° which is so close to the claimed value of 44° that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the nano-scale microcrystalline structure such that an effective scattering angle is 44° since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection screen of Lui with the projection screen wherein the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has an effective scattering angle of 44° of Zhang, for the purpose of increasing the visualization range of the projected image, thus increasing the field of view of the transparent projection screen (para [0044]).
Claims 6, 8-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 114077149 A (hereinafter referred to as Liu, published 2022-02-22), in view of Zhang et al., US 2022/0390823 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Zhang), and further in view of Han et al., US 2012/0169978 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Han).
As to claim 6, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method, wherein the transparent three-dimensional crystals are micro-round spherical nanocrystals.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H) with a nano-scale microcrystalline structure wherein the transparent three-dimensional crystals are micro-round spherical nanocrystals (200, the plurality of nano-particles 200 are silica balls such as silicon oxide and polycrystal silicon, paras [0060] and [0066], Figs. 1 and 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu wherein the transparent three-dimensional crystals are micro-round spherical nanocrystals of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 8, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein a material of the reflective layer (3) is selected from the group consisting of silver, aluminum, and nickel (22, “the reflective layer 22… made of metals such as aluminum, copper, silver, and chromium,” para [0053], Fig. 7).
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method wherein the reflective layer has a thickness of 80 nm to 500 nm.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein the reflective layer (20, the first layer 10 and second layer 20 are stacked and have different refractive indices thus reflect various spectrums such as red, green, and blue, para [0044], Fig. 1) has a thickness of 80 nm to 500 nm (20, the second layer has on optical thickness corresponding to λ/2, the physical thickness of the second layer can be determined from the optical thickness by dividing the optical thickness by the index of refraction of the material at the wavelength λ, which from blue (400 nm) to red (800 nm) wavelengths gives a range of thickness of the second layer from 142 nm to 300 nm for SiO2. Thus, the thickness of the second layer ranges from 142 nm to 300 nm which falls in the claimed range of 80 nm to 500 nm).
It has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the thickness of the reflective layer such that the thickness ranges from 80 nm to 500 nm, which overlaps the disclosed range of 142 nm to 300 nm, since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP §2144.05(I) first paragraph. In the current instance, the thickness of the reflective layer is an art recognized results effective variable in that by controlling the thickness of the reflective layer the wavelength of reflected light changes as taught by Han (para [0044]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of the reflective layer to range from 80 nm to 500 nm because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because by controlling the thickness the wavelength of reflected light (para [0044]).
As to claim 9, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Liu further teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, further comprising: attaching a dark-colored material to the surface of the structural layer (2) (24, the projection screen 2 also includes a light-shielding structure 24 which is formed on the side of the each reflective layer opposite to the multiple light guides 212, para [0049], Fig. 7) to form a light-absorbing layer (5) on the structural layer (2) (24, the light-shielding structure 24, which is formed on the multiple light guides 212, is used to absorb the light beam emitted by the projector, para [0049], Fig. 7).
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method comprising adsorbing the reflective metal on a surface of the light-absorbing layer (5) through the printing, the spray-coating, the deposition, the vacuum evaporation, or the electroplating to form the reflective layer (3) on the light-absorbing layer (5).
However, an alternate embodiment of Liu teaches (Fig. 9) teaches a manufacturing method of a projection screen (2, “the projection screen 2,” para [0054], Fig. 9) comprising adsorbing the reflective metal (22, “reflective layer 22,” para [0054], Fig. 9) on a surface (2421, “a bearing surface 2421,” para [0054], Fig. 9) of the light-absorbing layer (5) (24, “light-shielding structure 24,” para [0054], Fig. 9) through the printing, the spray-coating, the deposition, the vacuum evaporation, or the electroplating to form the reflective layer (3) (S4, “a reflective layer is formed by coating a reflective colloid,” para [0076], Fig. 16) on the light-absorbing layer (5) (24, “the reflective layer 22 is formed on one side of the light-shielding structure 24,” para [0054], Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of the first embodiment of Liu with the manufacturing method comprising coating the light-absorbing layer with the reflective layer of an alternate embodiment of Liu, because the problem of mura (overlapping patterns) on the projection screen 2 can be significantly reduced (para [0054]).
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method comprising attaching a dark-colored material to the surface of the structural layer through deposition or electroplating.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein the method comprises attaching a dark-colored material to the surface of the structural layer (30, the absorption layer 30 is formed on the plurality of nano-particles 200 and is formed to include a gray absorber formed of one of a pigment, carbon, Cr, paras [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1) through deposition or electroplating (30, the absorption layer 30 is formed by depositing a thin Cr film as the absorption layer 30, paras [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu wherein the dark-colored material is attached to the surface of the structural layer through deposition of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 10, Liu in view of Zhang and further in view of Han teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method according to claim 9, wherein a material of the light-absorbing layer (5) is selected from the group consisting of chromium and iron, and the light-absorbing layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 300 nm.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein a material of the light-absorbing layer (5) is selected from the group consisting of chromium and iron (30, the absorption layer 30 is formed by depositing a thin Cr film as the absorption layer 30, paras [0053]-[0054], Fig. 1), and the light-absorbing layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 300 nm (30 “deposition of a thin Cr film having a thickness of about 200 nm,” para [0058], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu wherein a material of the light-absorbing layer (5) is selected from the group consisting of chromium and iron, and the light-absorbing layer has a thickness of 100 nm to 300 nm of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 11, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method further comprising: attaching a crystal layer (6) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer to the surface of the reflective layer (3) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating, and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) through coating or spray-coating.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein the method comprises attaching a crystal layer (6) (10, the first layer 10 is a TiO2 thin film, para [0047], Fig. 1) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer (10, the first layer 10 has a thickness of less than about 50 nm, para [0045], Fig. 1) to the surface of the reflective layer (3) (20, the second layer 20, para [0044], Fig. 1) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating (10, the first layer 10 is deposited on the reflective layer 20, paras [0058]-[0059], Fig. 1), and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) (200, the plurality of nano-particles 200 are silica balls such as silicon oxide and polycrystal silicon, paras [0060] and [0066], Figs. 1 and 5A) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) (10, 200, the nano-particles 200 are attached to the lower surface of the crystal layer 10 via the absorption layer 30) through coating or spray-coating (200, the substrate 100 coated with the silica balls as the nano-particles 200, para [0058], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu with attaching a crystal layer (6) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer to the surface of the reflective layer (3) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating, and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) through coating or spray-coating of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 12, Liu in view of Zhang and further in view of Han teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method, wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm, and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6).
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm (10, the first layer 10 has a thickness of less than about 50 nm, para [0045], Fig. 1), and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6) (10, the first layer 10 is a single nano-layer film, para [0045], Fig. 1).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of less than about 50 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 50 nm to 200 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the crystal layer such that thickness of the crystal layer is 50 nm to 200 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm, and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6) of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 17, Liu in view of Zhang and further in view of Han teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method further comprising: attaching a crystal layer (6) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer to the surface of the reflective layer (3) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating, and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) through coating or spray-coating.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein the method comprises attaching a crystal layer (6) (10, the first layer 10 is a TiO2 thin film, para [0047], Fig. 1) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer (10, the first layer 10 has a thickness of less than about 50 nm, para [0045], Fig. 1) to the surface of the reflective layer (3) (20, the second layer 20, para [0044], Fig. 1) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating (10, the first layer 10 is deposited on the reflective layer 20, paras [0058]-[0059], Fig. 1), and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) (200, the plurality of nano-particles 200 are silica balls such as silicon oxide and polycrystal silicon, paras [0060] and [0066], Figs. 1 and 5A) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) (10, 200, the nano-particles 200 are attached to the lower surface of the crystal layer 10 via the absorption layer 30) through coating or spray-coating (200, the substrate 100 coated with the silica balls as the nano-particles 200, para [0058], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu with attaching a crystal layer (6) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer to the surface of the reflective layer (3) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating, and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) through coating or spray-coating of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 18, Liu in view of Zhang and further in view of Han teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method further comprising: attaching a crystal layer (6) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer to the surface of the reflective layer (3) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating, and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) through coating or spray-coating.
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein the method comprises attaching a crystal layer (6) (10, the first layer 10 is a TiO2 thin film, para [0047], Fig. 1) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer (10, the first layer 10 has a thickness of less than about 50 nm, para [0045], Fig. 1) to the surface of the reflective layer (3) (20, the second layer 20, para [0044], Fig. 1) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating (10, the first layer 10 is deposited on the reflective layer 20, paras [0058]-[0059], Fig. 1), and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) (200, the plurality of nano-particles 200 are silica balls such as silicon oxide and polycrystal silicon, paras [0060] and [0066], Figs. 1 and 5A) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) (10, 200, the nano-particles 200 are attached to the lower surface of the crystal layer 10 via the absorption layer 30) through coating or spray-coating (200, the substrate 100 coated with the silica balls as the nano-particles 200, para [0058], Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu with attaching a crystal layer (6) comprising at least one transparent nanofilm layer to the surface of the reflective layer (3) through deposition, vacuum evaporation, or electroplating, and then attaching the nano-scale microcrystal layer (4) to a surface of the crystal layer (6) through coating or spray-coating of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 19, Liu in view of Zhang and further in view of Han teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method, wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm, and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6).
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm (10, the first layer 10 has a thickness of less than about 50 nm, para [0045], Fig. 1), and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6) (10, the first layer 10 is a single nano-layer film, para [0045], Fig. 1).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of less than about 50 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 50 nm to 200 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the crystal layer such that thickness of the crystal layer is 50 nm to 200 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm, and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6) of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
As to claim 20, Liu in view of Zhang and further in view of Han teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18.
Liu does not teach the manufacturing method, wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm, and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6).
Liu and Han are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Han teaches (Figs. 1 and 5A-5H) a manufacturing method of a projection screen (“manufacturing method of a reflective structure,” the reflective structure is a reflective display apparatus, para [0065]-[0066], Figs. 5A-5H), wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm (10, the first layer 10 has a thickness of less than about 50 nm, para [0045], Fig. 1), and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6) (10, the first layer 10 is a single nano-layer film, para [0045], Fig. 1).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of less than about 50 nm which is so close to the claimed range of 50 nm to 200 nm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the crystal layer such that thickness of the crystal layer is 50 nm to 200 nm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the manufacturing method of Liu wherein each transparent nanofilm layer in the crystal layer (6) has a thickness of 50 nm to 200 nm, and there are no more than two transparent nanofilm layers in the crystal layer (6) of Han, for the purpose of a display apparatus having an omni-directional reflective structure with no color change according to a viewing angle and capable of improving color purity (para [0022]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 114077149 A (hereinafter referred to as Liu, published 2022-02-22), in view of Zhang et al., US 2022/0390823 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Zhang), and further in view of Hayashi, US 2009/0155759 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hayashi).
As to claim 14, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Liu further teaches the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure according to claim 13, wherein the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has a brightness (25, the diffusion particles 25 improve the uniformity of light intensity of the projection screen 2 at various viewing angles, para [0052], Fig. 7)
Liu does not teach the projection screen has a brightness coefficient of 4.032.
Liu and Hayashi are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Hayashi teaches (Figs. 1 and 2) a projection screen (3S, “the projection blackboard,” para [0027], Fig. 2) wherein the projection screen has a brightness coefficient of 4.032 (the brightness of the projection blackboard V is from 3.0 to 7.0, preferably from 4.0 to 6.0, which includes the claimed value 4.032, para [0031], Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection screen of Liu with the projection screen wherein the projection screen has a brightness coefficient of 4.032 of Hayashi, for the purpose of improving the projected-image-recognizable property (para [0007]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., CN 114077149 A (hereinafter referred to as Liu, published 2022-02-22), in view of Zhang et al., US 2022/0390823 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Zhang), and further in view of Lu et al., CN 112578625 A (hereinafter referred to as Lu, published 2021-03-30).
As to claim 16, Liu in view of Zhang teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1.
Liu does not teach the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure according to claim 13, wherein the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has a polarization contrast of 3397.3: 1.
Liu and Lu are related as manufacturing projection screens.
However, Lu teaches (Figs. 1-2 and 9-13) a projection screen (“projections screens… a metallic screen,” para [0001, Fig. 2) wherein the projection screen with the nano-scale microcrystalline structure has a polarization contrast of 3397.3: 1 (a high polarization-maintaining metal screen with an uneven microstructure surface is prepared to have a polarization contrast ratio greater than 1000:1 or up to 2000:1, para [0067], Figs. 9-12).
It has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a range of polarization contrast ratio greater than 1000:1 or up to 2000:1 which is so close to the claimed value of 3397.3: 1 that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the polarization contrast such that the polarization contrast ratio is 3397.3:1 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the projection screen of Liu with the projection screen wherein the projection screen has a polarization contrast of 3397.3: 1 of Lu, for the purpose of providing a better viewing experience (para [0067]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
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 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.
/J.A.J./
JENNIFER A JONESExaminer, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
06/16/2026
Prosecution Insights