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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-3 and 5-7 in the reply filed on 4/16/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-3 and 5-7 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.
Claim 1 recites “ach projected straight line reflects from the reflective film as a reflected line, each reflected line having a luminance distribution defining a centerline of the reflected line, a distribution of an angle α between the centerlines of the reflected lines and the second direction having a standard deviation of less than 2.5 degrees”. A person having ordinary skill in the art could not determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention on account of the indefiniteness of “centerline” and “distribution of an angle α between the centerlines of the reflected lines and the second direction”. IN the Specification, Applicant provides a contextual description of “centerline” in Figs. 10B and 10D and a contextual description of angle distribution in Fig. 10C. These portions of the disclosure fall short of providing a clear roadmap for determining a centerline of data and subsequently for determining an angle and angle distribution of data. Accordingly, the apparatus to which the claim is drawn is not clearly structurally limited by the claimed configuration to reflect a straight line with an angle distribution having a standard deviation of less than 2.5 degrees. Absent an algorithmic solution to defining a centerline for an elongated data set, there is no specific methodology that would be understood by an artisan but rather a wide range of possibilities. In the depictions of centerlines in the originally filed applications, a dashed line runs approximately equidistantly from boundaries of the illumination distribution. The figures labeled (a) and (b) below show that centroid values of the data spine vary depending on the methodology used. In (a), data are sampled across a direction orthogonal to the claimed “second direction” at even intervals. In (b), data are sampled across a direction orthogonal to the local boundaries of the data itself. In isolation, a claimed recitation of centerline may not be indefinite though in the context of the pending claim the centerline is a reference by which other values are determined. In (a) and (b), an angle α is measured based on extrapolating data within sampled line segment relative to the claimed second direction. As the sampling method and/or sampling rate varies between (a) and (b) the angle α is evidently different for identical simulated reflected lines and thus the angle distribution. For (c) and (d), sampling is varied relative to (a) and (b) and the centerline represents a fitted line and is not inclusive of the data itself. The difference between (c) and (d) is a rotation of the data such that the fitted line is angled relative to the claimed second direction. The angular distribution of the fitted line centerline is zero or approximately zero relative to an arbitrary direction. The examples of (a)-(d) serve as illustration of a subset of possible, mutually exclusive interpretations of the claimed invention that would not have been clearly defined to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The result of such indefiniteness ranges from a limiting the reflective film to weakly wavy reflected lines (e.g. (a) and (b) examples), weakly skewed lined (e.g. (d) example), or an arbitrary limitation on the data that does not further limit the reflective film (e.g. (c) example). In the case of (c), a fitted line may be selected as the centerline such that it is arbitrarily aligned with the claimed second direction and amounts to a standard deviation of 0 degrees – a value within the scope of the claim. This is not merely a matter of claim breadth as a possible infringing apparatus might be said to infringe the invention according to one method of determining a centerline and angle distribution and not infringe the invention according to another method of determining a centerline and angle distribution.
PNG
media_image1.png
900
1600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-3 are rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Further, claim 1 recites “a plurality of alternating polymeric interference layers and disposed substantially symmetrically between and bonded to the first and second glass layers such that when a plurality of parallel straight lines is projected onto the glass laminate …each projected straight line reflects from the reflective film as a reflected line, each reflected line having a luminance distribution defining a centerline of the reflected line, a distribution of an angle α between the centerlines of the reflected lines and the second direction having a standard deviation of less than 2.5 degrees”. In the emphasized portions of the claim, a straight line projected onto the glass laminate transmits through a first glass layer, reflects from the reflective film and transmits again through a same first glass layer to form a reflected line measurable by a detector (see [0069]-[0071]). The claim, however, defines the reflected line to be that which is reflected from the reflective film and further limits the angle distribution and standard deviation thereof relative to this reflected line. A person having ordinary skill in the art, understanding the claims in light of the Specifications, would not understand the measures of angle distribution to be associated with a reflection merely from the reflective film or a reflection from the reflective film that subsequently transmits through a bonding interface and a glass layer. In other words, it is unclear if the language limiting the reflected line should be understood as limiting the reflective film as an intermediate product, absent its incorporation into the final product of the glass laminate, or as limiting the reflective film functionality within the final product. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand there to be a substantive difference between a structure limited by the claimed standard deviation of a reflective film alone and a structure limited by the claimed standard deviation of a reflective film surrounded by the bonding interface and a glass layer.
Claims 2-3 are rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Further, claim 1 recites the limitation “the centerlines of the reflected lines”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. As there are a plurality of projected lines and presumably a plurality of corresponding reflected lines, it is unclear if the antecedent basis of “the centerlines of the reflected lines” references a subset or the whole set of the plurality of reflected lines.
Further, claim 1 recites the “a standard deviation of less than 2.5 degrees” which is inclusive of a zero-value standard deviation (i.e. mathematically flat). Applicant discloses “it has been found that optical films laminated to a glass layer or between two glass layers can result in a substantially reduced waviness when the optical film has a high shrinkage under heat” ([0037]) and “can substantially reduce or prevent distortion (e.g., wrinkles) in the optical film during the lamination” ([0058]). In light of the Specifications, it is unclear whether the claimed lamination process limits the claimed standard deviation to only non-zero values or if the claim intends to capture a product that does not exhibit distortion. For the latter, it would appear the claim would be infringed by a structure capable of polarizing specular reflection and lacking measurable distortion – despite the disclosure appearing to disclaim such structures.
Claim 5 recites “a plurality of alternating polymeric interference layers and disposed between and bonded to the first and second glass layers such that when a plurality of parallel straight lines is projected from a display surface onto the glass laminate … each projected straight line reflects from the reflective film as a reflected line such that an image of the reflected line has a luminance distribution in an image plane, a magnification from the display surface to the image plane being about 1, the luminance distribution of the image of each reflected line having a standard deviation about a best fit straight line, a mean of the standard deviations being less than 0.9 times the line width”. In the emphasized portions of the claim, a straight line projected onto the glass laminate transmits through a first glass layer, reflects from the reflective film and transmits again through a same first glass layer to form a reflected line measurable by a detector (see [0069]-[0071]). The claim, however, defines the reflected line to be that which is reflected from the reflective film and further limits the line width and standard deviation therefrom relative to this reflected line. A person having ordinary skill in the art, understanding the claims in light of the Specifications, would not understand the measures of linewidth and standard deviation to be associated with a reflection merely from the reflective film or a reflection from the reflective film that subsequently transmits through a bonding interface and a glass layer. In other words, it is unclear if the language limiting the reflected line should be understood as limiting the reflective film as an intermediate product, absent its incorporation into the final product of the glass laminate, or as limiting the reflective film functionality within the final product. A person having ordinary skill in the art would understand there to be a substantive difference between a structure limited by the claimed standard deviation of a reflective film alone and a structure limited by the claimed standard deviation of a reflective film surrounded by the bonding interface and a glass layer.
Claims 6-7 are rejected as failing to cure the deficiencies of the independent claim.
Claim 5 recites the “a magnification from the display surface to the image plane being about 1, the luminance distribution of the image of each reflected line having a standard deviation about a best fit straight line, a mean of the standard deviations being less than 0.9 times the line width” which is inclusive of identity values of standard deviation (i.e. mathematically flat reflection). For example, were the projected lines to have top-hat distributions, magnification of “about 1” as claimed, and a standard deviation of approximately 28% of the linewidth, the reflected line would be an identity. In other words, the reflection would be of such fidelity that the standard deviation value demonstrates that no waviness is exhibited. Applicant discloses “it has been found that optical films laminated to a glass layer or between two glass layers can result in a substantially reduced waviness when the optical film has a high shrinkage under heat” ([0037]) and “can substantially reduce or prevent distortion (e.g., wrinkles) in the optical film during the lamination” ([0058]). In light of the Specifications, it is unclear whether the claimed lamination process limits the claimed standard deviation to values within a narrower range than claimed. It would appear the claim would be infringed by a structure capable of polarizing specular reflection and lacking measurable distortion – despite the disclosure appearing to disclaim such structures.
Claim interpretation
Regarding claims 1-3 and 5-7, a claimed apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art apparatus on the basis of structure. Therefore, the patentability of an apparatus claim depends only on the claimed structure, not on the use or the purpose of that structure, Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v. Coolsavings.com Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2002), or the function or result of that structure. See In re Schrieber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gardiner, 171.F2d 313, 315-16 (CCPA 1948).
Language in an apparatus claim directed to the function, operation, intent of use, and materials upon which these apparatus components work that does not structurally limit the apparatus components or patentably differentiate the claimed apparatus from an otherwise identical prior art apparatus will not support patentability. See, e.g. In re Rishoi, 107 F.2d 342, 344-45 (CCPA 1952); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 940 (CCPA 1963); In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660,663-64 (CCPA 1971); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 959 (CCPA 1973).
Language requiring a distribution of an angle between centerlines of reflected lines and the second direction and a luminance distribution having a standard deviation relative to line width are both directed to intended use, function, and/or operation of the “the glass laminate” in claims 1 and 5.
The limitation has been considered and given patentable weight only in so much as the function/operation imposes structural requirements on the apparatus. Since the applied reference teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim, the reference is presumed to be capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
The burden shifts to the Applicant to rebut the presumption that the structure of the applied reference(s) is not capable of the intended use, function, and/or operation.
As the limitations on angle distribution (Claim 1) and line width broadening (Claim 5) are expressed in the claims, the nature of the projected lines is critically important to the resultant performance. In other words, different projected straight lines will perform different for a same glass laminate based on the scale of mechanisms causing distortion. Low-, mid-, and high-frequency distortions are understood by artisan as being caused by sources of distortion of increasing size. Absent a disclosure of optical distortion in the prior art, it cannot be said that there is necessarily optical distortion of any particular magnitude at any particular frequency. As optical flatness is disclosed in the cited reference Watson, there is no structure disclosed that would cause significant distortion and one cannot assume there would be distortion of a particular degree. The distortion effects causing line waviness or line width broadening are inversely proportional to the projected linewidth, and therefore a line width of projected light could necessarily illuminate the glass laminate to achieve the claimed performance.
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2014/0176818 to Watson et al. (hereinafter Watson).
Regarding claim 1, Watson discloses a glass laminate (Fig. 2) comprising: first and second glass layers (“first or second prism, 202 or 203, may be constructed from optical glass”, Fig. 2); and a reflective film comprising a plurality of alternating polymeric interference layers (“a first polymeric reflective polarizer 225”, Fig. 2; Claims 1-2 & [0032]) and disposed substantially symmetrically between and bonded to the first and second glass layers (Fig. 2; [0032]) such that when a plurality of parallel straight lines is projected onto the glass laminate along a first direction making an angle θ in a range of 40 degrees to 75 degrees with respect to a normal to the glass laminate so that the plurality of parallel straight lines extend along a second direction orthogonal to a plane of incidence defined by the first direction and the normal, each projected straight line reflects from the reflective film as a reflected line, each reflected line having a luminance distribution defining a centerline of the reflected line, a distribution of an angle α between the centerlines of the reflected lines and the second direction having a standard deviation of less than 2.5 degrees (“A surface is said to be optically flat if it is sufficiently flat that images reflected from the surface are not significantly distorted” & “deviation from optical flatness can be characterized by the effective pixel resolution of the PBS, which is defined as the maximum resolution that can be expected to be reliably (across 95% of the image) resolved after an image is reflected from the particular PBS”; [0027]-[0028],[0032],[0038] & Claims 1, 2, 12, 12).
The disclosed pixel resolution of 6µm necessitates that a line width of sufficient thickness would exhibit the claims angle distribution in reflection.
Regarding claim 5, Watson discloses a glass laminate (Fig. 2) comprising: first and second glass layers (“first or second prism, 202 or 203, may be constructed from optical glass”, Fig. 2); and a reflective film comprising a plurality of alternating polymeric interference layers (“a first polymeric reflective polarizer 225”, Fig. 2; Claims 1-2 & [0032]) and disposed substantially symmetrically between and bonded to the first and second glass layers (Fig. 2; [0032]) such that when a plurality of parallel straight lines is projected from a display surface onto the glass laminate along a first direction, each straight line having a substantially same line width on the display surface, the first direction making an angle θ in a range of 40 degrees to 75 degrees with respect to a normal to the glass laminate, the plurality of parallel straight lines extending along a second direction orthogonal to a plane of incidence defined by the first direction and the normal, each projected straight line reflects from the reflective film as a reflected line such that an image of the reflected line has a luminance distribution in an image plane, a magnification from the display surface to the image plane being about 1, the luminance distribution of the image of each reflected line having a standard deviation about a best fit straight line, a mean of the standard deviations being less than 0.9 times the line width (“A surface is said to be optically flat if it is sufficiently flat that images reflected from the surface are not significantly distorted” & “deviation from optical flatness can be characterized by the effective pixel resolution of the PBS, which is defined as the maximum resolution that can be expected to be reliably (across 95% of the image) resolved after an image is reflected from the particular PBS”; [0027]-[0028],[0032],[0038] & Claims 1, 2, 12, 12).
The disclosed planar surfaces necessitate magnification of about 1.
The disclosed pixel resolution of 6µm necessitates that a line width of sufficient thickness would exhibit the claims angle distribution in reflection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST M-F.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER STANFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights