Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Drawings
In view of the amendments to the specification, the previous objections to the drawings are hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 4 September 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US patent no. 10,838,127 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
In view of the terminal disclaimer filed 4 September 2026, the previous double patenting rejections in view of US patent no. 10,838,127 is hereby withdrawn.
However, the examiner notes that the terminal disclaimer did not include U.S. Patent No. 12,078,833. As such, the double patenting rejections in view of US 12,078,833 is maintained and is restated below.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,833, of record. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, 12,078,833 claims a polarizer stack comprising first and second reflective polarizers (see claim 1, lines 1-2), wherein with increasing wavelength across a visible wavelength band, a block state transmittance of the first reflective polarizer decreases (see claim 1, lines 3-5) and a block state transmittance of the second reflective polarizer increases (see claim 1, lines 5-6).
Regarding claim 2, 12,078,833 also claims that a pass axis transmission of the polarizer stack as a whole is substantially neutral across the visible wavelength band (see claim 2).
Regarding claim 3¸ 12,078,833 also claims an absorbing polarizer disposed between the first and second reflective polarizers (see claim 1, lines 1-2), wherein a contrast ratio of the polarizer stack is 500:1 or less (see claim 4, where a contrast ratio of 100:1 is less than 500:1).
Regarding claim 5, 12,078,833 also claims that a ratio of a visible light pass axis transmission of the polarizer stack at 60 degrees incidence to a visible light pass axis transmission of the polarizer stack at normal incidence is less than 0.75 for p-pol light (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, 12,078,833 also claims that a ratio of a visible light pass axis transmission of the polarizer stack at 60 degrees incidence to a visible light pass axis transmission of the polarizer stack at normal incidence is less than 0.75 for s-pol light (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, 12,078,833 also claims a visible light block axis transmission at normal incidence of less than 0.001 (see claim 7).
Claims 4 and 8-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,078,833, of record, in view of Weber et al. (US 2008/0151371) of record (hereafter Weber).
Regarding claim 4, 12,078,833 claims all of the limitations of claim 1 (see above).
12,078,833 does not specifically claim that a contrast ratio of the polarizer stack is 6000:1 or more.
However, Weber teaches a polarizer stack comprising first and second reflective polarizers (see at least the abstract), wherein a contrast ratio of the polarizer stack is 6000:1 or more (see at least paragraph [0064], where the contrast ratio can be as a high as 10,000:1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the backlight of 12,078,833 to include the teachings of Weber so that a contrast ratio of the polarizer stack is 6000:1 or more for the purpose of improving the polarizing function of the polarizer stack and a black state of a display comprising the polarizer stack.
Regarding claim 8, 12,078,833 claims all of the limitations of claim 1 (see above).
12,078,833 also claims a backlight comprising the polarizer stack of claim 1 and a light source (see claim 9).
12,078,833 does not specifically claim that the light source is disposed proximate the polarizer stack.
However, Weber teaches a polarizer stack comprising first and second reflective polarizers (see at least the abstract) and a backlight comprising the polarizer stack and a light source disposed proximate the polarizer stack (see paragraph [0071], where the polarizer stack is between the light source and a display panel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the backlight of 12,078,833 to include the teachings of Weber so that the light source is disposed proximate the polarizer stack for the purpose of making a compact display device (see paragraph [0071] of Weber).
Regarding claim 9, 12,078,833 as modified by Weber claims all of the limitations of claim 8.
Weber also teaches a display comprising a panel and the backlight of claim 8 disposed to illuminate the panel (see at least paragraph [0071] of Weber).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the backlight of 12,078,833 as modified by Weber to include the further teachings of Weber so that the backlight is part of a display that comprises a panel and the backlight of claim 8 disposed to illuminate the panel for the purpose of using the backlight in a known application to create a display device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
