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 (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objection/s to the Specification
The incorporation of essential material in the specification by reference to an unpublished U.S. application, foreign application or patent, or to a publication is improper. Applicant is required to amend the disclosure to include the material incorporated by reference, if the material is relied upon to overcome any objection, rejection, or other requirement imposed by the Office. The amendment must be accompanied by a statement executed by the applicant, or a practitioner representing the applicant, stating that the material being inserted is the material previously incorporated by reference and that the amendment contains no new matter. 37 CFR 1.57(g).
The title of the invention, “DISPLAY DEVICE,” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,111,465 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 1 and 4 claim all limitations claimed by the pending claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as followed.
Pending claims
Patented claims
1. An optical system, comprising a visible light emitted by a display and having a first polarization state; and an infrared light cut-off film configured to substantially transmit the visible light from the display and to substantially block an incident infrared light having substantially the first polarization state from being incident on the display.
1. A display device, characterized in that the display device comprises: a display portion emitting a visible light of a linearly polarized wave having display information; an infrared light cut-off portion transmitting the visible light from the display portion and reducing an incident amount of an infrared light to the display portion; and a reflecting portion reflecting the visible light transmitted through the infrared light cut-off portion, wherein the infrared light cut-off portion comprises an infrared light cut-off layer, the infrared light cut-off layer has a slow axis, and the slow axis is generally parallel to a vibration direction of the linearly polarized wave.
2. The optical system of claim 1, wherein the infrared light cut-off film comprises a multi-layer optical film.
4. The display device according to claim 1, wherein the infrared light cut-off portion further comprises an ultra-violet light cut-off layer reducing a transmittance of an ultra-violet light, and the infrared light cut-off layer and the ultra-violet light cut-off layer both have transmissivity in a visible light region.
4. An optical system, comprising a display configured to emit visible light having a first polarization state; and an infrared light cut-off film configured to substantially transmit the visible light from the display and to reduce infrared light incident on the display, wherein the infrared light cut-off film has a slow axis that is generally parallel to the first polarization state.
5. The optical system of claim 4, wherein the infrared light cut-off film reduces the infrared light incident on the display by at least one of reflection and absorption.
1. A display device, characterized in that the display device comprises: a display portion emitting a visible light of a linearly polarized wave having display information; an infrared light cut-off portion transmitting the visible light from the display portion and reducing an incident amount of an infrared light to the display portion; and a reflecting portion reflecting the visible light transmitted through the infrared light cut-off portion, wherein the infrared light cut-off portion comprises an infrared light cut-off layer, the infrared light cut-off layer has a slow axis, and the slow axis is generally parallel to a vibration direction of the linearly polarized wave.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
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 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takase (US 20190265470 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takase teaches an optical system (Fig. 1-8), comprising a visible light emitted by a display (110) and having a first polarization state ([0023], [0031]); and an infrared light cut-off film (130/150) configured to substantially transmit the visible light from the display (110) and to substantially block an incident infrared light having substantially the first polarization state from being incident on the display (110; [0032], [0046]).
Regarding claim 2, Takase further teaches the infrared light cut-off film (130/150) comprises a multi-layer optical film ([0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Takase further teaches the infrared light cut-off film (130/150) comprises infrared-absorbing material ([0032], [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, Takase further teaches an optical system (Fig. 1-8), comprising a display (110) configured to emit visible light having a first polarization state; and an infrared light cut-off film (130/150) configured to substantially transmit the visible light from the display (110) and to reduce infrared light incident on the display (110), wherein the infrared light cut-off film (130/150) has a slow axis (Ax) that is generally parallel to the first polarization state ([0023], [0040], [0063]-[0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Takase further teaches the infrared light cut-off film (130/150) reduces the infrared light incident on the display (110) by at least one of reflection and absorption ([0032], [0046]).
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Patent documents, US 20210096365 A1, US 20200201037 A1, US 20200189363 A1, DE 102018213061 A1, DE 102018213061 A1, US 20190346676 A1, US 20160357096 A1, and US 20140177040 A1, disclose system for blocking sunlight from entering a HUD in vehicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights