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 § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marx (6,262,843) in view of Inada et al. (JP2004125759A).
Regarding claim 1, Marx discloses a partition, at least partially formed of a transparent member, for partitioning the space in which the display is arranged (col. 5, lines 54-61); and
a polarizing film including the an absorption-typed polarizer and bonded to the transparent member (note second filter 44 in col. 6, lines 20-38; the blocked the light of a particular polarization direction by filter 44 is inherently being absorbed in the polarization absorption axis of the filter); except
a mirror member, wherein the mirror member is arranged on a side of the polarizing film opposite to a side on which the display is arranged so that the mirror member reflects an image of the display through the polarizing film.
Inada, from the similar field of endeavor, discloses an object detection system (Fig. 1 and Fig. 10) teaching the use of a mirror 40 and a mirror 880. By using the mirror 40 or 880, an object 50 or 902 can be detected by detecting and observing the amount of lights reflected by the mirror 40 and 880. The mirror enables a detector (30, 860) or even a viewer to detect or to see the amount of light being reflected by the mirror 40 or 880. Based on the reflection of the mirror (40, 880), the detector can detect or the viewer can acknowledge whether there are lights being transmitted (12, 824) to the mirror (40, 880). That is, the viewer on the latter is able to see instantaneously whether there are lights being reflected or not from the mirrors (40 , 880) purely based on the reflection of the mirror without going through the detectors (30, 860) which can cause delay. Thus, to further enhance the convenience of the anti-peeping system in Marx, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the mirror (40, 880) of Inada into Marx so that the user 2 could be aware of the display 22 whether it is being peeped or not by the outsider 4 instantly. The motivation of lights instantaneously reflected from a mirror is found in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art since we look at the mirrors every day.
Regarding claim 2, Marx does not disclose the polarizing film has a surface having a surface reflectance of 3% or less on the side on which the display is arranged. Since the polarizer 44 can be any conventional polarizer, 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 polarizer with 3% reflectance. The selection would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 3, Marx inherently discloses that the polarizing film further includes an antireflection layer provided on the surface on the side on which the display is arranged. That is, the absorption characteristic of the polarizer is a form of antireflection.
Regarding claim 4, Bloom discloses the mirror member is a wide-angle mirror member (note mirror 110).
Regarding claim 5, in addition of rejection to claim 1, it would have been obvious to glue the mirror 110 of Boom on the polarizer 44 of Marx in order to secure the two together.
Regarding claim 6, in addition of rejection to claim 1, it would have been obvious to arrange the mirror 110 of Bloom and the polarizer 44 of Marx with a space Z as taught by Bloom.
Regarding claim 7, in addition of rejection to claim 1, it would have been obvious to arrange the mirror member diagonally with respect to the polarizing film. The placement would have been a matter of obvious design choice. For instance, in order to achieve direct line of view to the user 2, the mirror can be manipulated so that it is attached to the polarizing film at an angle.
Regarding claim 8, the polarizer 44 in Marx can be rotated so that its polarization state is either parallel or orthogonal to that of polarizer 66 (note col. 3, lines 1-24).
Regarding claim 9, the mirror member in Bloom includes a reflective layer but not the protective base material arranged on a side of the polarizing film of the reflective layer, wherein the protective base material has an Re(550) of 50 nm or less. The examiner takes Official notice that using protective base materials on the reflective layer of a reflective mirror is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the protective base material as claimed onto the reflective layer to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, see rejection to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, see rejection to claim 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/6/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under Marx in view of Bloom have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Inada.
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 MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights