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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed September 19, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed. Specifically, the references of Lin (US 2014/0099363) and DIRTT Environmental Solutions Inc (WO 2019/147726) may presumably have been included in error, otherwise, explicit relevancy is respectfully requested. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 46-63 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 46, line 11; and claims 52, 54, 56 and 60 – “the adjacent liquid crystal material” (considered to be “the adjacent layer of liquid crystal material”)
Claim 46, line 15 – “the plane”
Claims 63, line 3 – “the opposite side”
Claims 58 and 59 recite limitations of a pair of passive retarders with two different orientations of optical axes, and optical axes in the plane that are crossed. These limitations do not appear commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 46, from which claims 58 and 59 depend, of at least one passive compensation retarder having an optical axis perpendicular to a plane.
Claim 63 recites limitations of a further control polariser and at least one further retarder, aspects which appear to be shown in the embodiment of Fig. 22C. However, these limitations do not appear commensurate with the limitations recited in claim 46, from which claim 63 depends, of there being no further polarisers between the plural retarders.
Claims 47-51, 53, 55, 57, 61 and 62 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 46-50, 52, 53 61 and 62 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13, 14 and 33-36 of U.S. Patent No. 11,092,851. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present claim 46 is merely broader than patent claim 1, considering the recited “control polariser” of present claim 46 to be equivalent to the recited “additional polariser” of patent claim 1.
Claims 46-50, 52, 53 and 61 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-10 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,788,710. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present claim 46 is merely broader than patent claim 1, considering the recited “control polariser” of present claim 46 to be equivalent to the recited “additional polariser” of patent claim 1.
Claims 46-50 and 56 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 37 and 38 of U.S. Patent No. 11,099,433. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present claim 46 is merely broader than patent claims 37 and 38, considering the recited “control polariser” of present claim 46 to be equivalent to the recited “additional polariser” of patent claim 1.
Claims 46-48, 56, 61 and 62 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,717. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because present claim 46 is merely broader than patent claims 1, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 18.
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.
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.
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 46-51, 56, 57, 61 and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okumura (US 2005/0190329) in view of Kobayashi (US 2006/0285040) and Kim et al. (US 2005/0014913), each of record in IDS.
Regarding claim 46, Okumura discloses a view angle control optical element for application to a display device (Figs. 1-4) comprising a spatial light modulator (1) and a display polariser (19) arranged on a side of the spatial light modulator (1), the view angle control optical element comprising a control polariser (66) and plural retarders (2 and para. [0103]) for arrangement between the control polariser (66) and the display polariser (19) on application of the view angle control optical element to the display device, there being no further polarisers between the plural retarders (see Fig. 4 and paras. [0103-0104]),
wherein the plural retarders comprise:
a switchable liquid crystal retarder (2) comprising a layer of liquid crystal material (65) and two surface alignment layers (para. [0072]) disposed adjacent to the layer of liquid crystal material (65) and on opposite sides thereof, each of the surface alignment layers being arranged to provide alignment in the adjacent liquid crystal material (para. [0072]); and
at least one passive compensation retarder which has its optical axis perpendicular to the plane of the at least one passive compensation retarder (e.g., C plate, para. [0103]).
Okumura fails to explicitly disclose the layer of liquid crystal material having a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from 500nm to 1000nm; and the at least one passive compensation retarder has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from -300nm to -700nm.
However, Kobayashi discloses a view angle control optical element for application to a display device (Figs. 1-8) comprising a switchable liquid crystal retarder (21) comprising a layer of liquid crystal material (26) having a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from 500nm to 1000nm (para. [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the layer of liquid crystal material having a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from 500nm to 1000nm, as in Kobayashi, into the view angle control optical element of Okumura for desired intensity of transmitted light (Kobayashi, paras. [0101-0110, 0119]).
Further, Kim discloses an optical element comprising at least one passive compensation retarder which has its optical axis perpendicular to a plane of the retarder and having a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from -300nm to -700nm (paras. [0033-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the at least one passive compensation retarder which has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from -300nm to -700nm, as in Kim, into the view angle control optical element of Okumura to compensate for the linearly polarized light’s change in the optical axis due to the optical anisotropy of liquid crystals, and to prevent light leakage (Kim, paras. [0005-0006]).
Regarding claims 47 and 48, Okumura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the layer of liquid crystal material has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from 600nm to 850nm, and in a range from 700nm to 800nm.
However, Kobayashi discloses wherein the layer of liquid crystal material (26) has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from 600nm to 850nm, and in a range from 700nm to 800nm (para. [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the layer of liquid crystal material has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550 nm in a range from 600 nm to 850 nm, and in a range from 700 nm to 800 nm, as in Kobayashi, into the view angle control optical element of Okumura to further optimize the viewing angle, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 49 and 50, Okumura discloses wherein the at least one passive compensation retarder comprises a retarder which has its optical axis perpendicular to the plane of the retarder (e.g., C plate, para. [0103]).
Okumura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the retarder has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from -350nm to -600nm, and in a range from -400nm to -500nm.
However, Kim discloses wherein the retarder has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from -350nm to -600nm, and in a range from -400nm to -500nm (paras. [0033-0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the retarder has a retardance for light of a wavelength of 550nm in a range from -350nm to -600nm, and in a range from -400nm to -500nm, as in Kim, into the view angle control optical element of Okumura to compensate for the linearly polarized light’s change in the optical axis due to the optical anisotropy of liquid crystals, and to prevent light leakage (Kim, paras. [0005-0006]), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 51, Okumura discloses wherein the switchable liquid crystal retarder (2) and the at least one passive compensation retarder are adjacent to each other (para. [0103]), but not necessarily immediately adjacent to each other.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the switchable liquid crystal retarder and the at least one passive compensation retarder being immediately adjacent to each other, since choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions of positions, with a reasonable expectation of success involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2141 and 2143.
Regarding claim 56, Okumura discloses wherein one of the surface alignment layers is arranged to provide homeotropic alignment in the adjacent liquid crystal material (65) and the other of the surface alignment layers is arranged to provide homogeneous alignment in the adjacent liquid crystal material (para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 57, Okumura discloses wherein the surface alignment layer arranged to provide homogeneous alignment is between the layer of liquid crystal material (65) and the passive compensation retarder (paras. [0072, 0103]).
Regarding claim 61, Okumura discloses wherein the switchable liquid crystal retarder (2) further comprises electrodes (63, 64) arranged to apply a voltage for controlling the layer of liquid crystal material (65) (para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 62, Okumura discloses wherein the electrodes (63, 64) comprise a single electrode on each side of the layer of liquid crystal material (65) (Fig. 4).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52-55 and 60 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 52, Okumura, along with the other prior art of record, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the two surface alignment layers are each arranged to provide homogeneous alignment in the adjacent layer of liquid crystal material, along with the other limitations of claim 46. Okumura discloses a passive compensation retarder (C plate; para. [0103]) is used with a hybrid alignment of liquid crystal material.
Thus, claim 52 would be allowable. Claim 53 would also be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 52.
Regarding claim 54, Okumura, along with the other prior art of record, fails to explicitly disclose wherein the two surface alignment layers are each arranged to provide homeotropic alignment in the adjacent layer of liquid crystal material, along with the other limitations of claim 46. Okumura discloses a passive compensation retarder (C plate; para. [0103]) is used with a hybrid alignment of liquid crystal material.
Thus, claim 54 would be allowable. Claim 55 would also be allowable by virtue of its dependency on claim 54.
Regarding claim 60, Okumura, along with the other prior art of record, fails to explicitly disclose wherein uniform alignment in the adjacent layer of liquid crystal material is provided when no voltage is applied across the layer of liquid crystal material, along with the other limitations of claim 46. Okumura discloses a passive compensation retarder (C plate; para. [0103]) is used with a hybrid alignment of liquid crystal material.
Thus, claim 60 would be allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached on 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871