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 .
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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0274244 to Battiato et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Battiato would have rendered obvious a process for manufacturing a backlighting-device component (see, e.g., paragraph [0147], describing how a parabolically oriented reflective polarizer is produced) comprising the following steps: depositing a coating layer on a reflective polarizer (where an outer layer of Xylex 7200 is formed on a multilayer optical film MOF), said reflective polarizer comprising a multilayer optical film (multilayer optical film MOF); and printing patterns in the coating layer in such a way that said printed coating layer forms an optical diffuser (where the multilayer optical film includes outer layers formed of Xylex 7200; then “extruding said layer onto a microreplicated belt,” where the “microreplicated layer was comprised of Xylex 7200,” and Claim 5 suggests that the birefringent structure surface is part of a birefringent diffuser).
That is, Battiato teaches, e.g., in Claim 1, an article for use in a display with a backlight, including a reflective polarizer and a birefringent brightness enhancement film having a structured surface; and Battiato also teaches in paragraph [0147], with respect to a ninth example, that a parabolically oriented reflective polarizer may be made by “first extruding the multilayer optical film,” where the multilayer optical film includes outer layers formed of Xylex 7200; then “extruding said layer onto a microreplicated belt,” where the “microreplicated layer was comprised of Xylex 7200,” and Claim 5 suggests that the birefringent structure surface is part of a birefringent diffuser; all of which reasonably suggests the features of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the optical diffuser has an angular distribution the full width at half maximum of which is less than 45 degrees with respect to a principal direction of diffusion (where Battiato appears silent regarding this feature, however, selecting an angular distribution, based on desired or intended use of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice at the time of effective filing, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 3, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the coating layer is made of a material that polymerizes under ultraviolet radiation (e.g., paragraphs [0076] and [0106]).
Regarding Claim 4, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the reflective polarizer further comprises at least one polycarbonate layer deposited on the multilayer optical film (e.g., Xylex 7200 is a polycarbonate, and may be formed on the outer layers of the multilayer optical film, paragraph [0147]).
Regarding Claim 5, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the reflective polarizer comprises a further polycarbonate layer, the at least one polycarbonate layer and the further layer being placed on either side of the multilayer optical film (e.g., Xylex 7200 is a polycarbonate, and may be formed on the outer layers of the multilayer optical film, paragraph [0147]).
Regarding Claim 6, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one polycarbonate layer is diffusing (e.g., Claim 3 of Battiato suggests a further birefringent brightness enhancement film, similar to the first with a structure surface, where Claim 5 suggests that such achieves diffusion).
Regarding Claim 7, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one polycarbonate layer has a diffusion angle of 2 degrees (where Battiato appears silent regarding this feature, however, selecting a diffusion angle, based on desired or intended use of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice at the time of effective filing, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 8, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one polycarbonate layer is adhesively bonded to the multilayer optical film by means of a layer of optical adhesive (e.g., paragraphs [0127] and [0138]).
Regarding Claim 9, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the dimensions and shape of the patterns are defined on the basis of the angular distribution of the optical diffuser (where Battiato appears silent regarding this correlation, however, selecting a shape of the patterns based on desired angular distribution, based on desired or intended use of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice at the time of effective filing, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 10, Battiato would have rendered obvious a backlighting-device (e.g., Claims 1, 5) component comprising: a reflective polarizer on a first side (Claims 1, 5), said reflective polarizer comprising a multilayer optical film (see, e.g., paragraph [0147], describing how a parabolically oriented reflective polarizer is produced); and an optical diffuser on a second side opposite the first side (Claims 1, 5), wherein the optical diffuser is a coating layer comprising printed patterns (where the multilayer optical film includes outer layers formed of Xylex 7200; then “extruding said layer onto a microreplicated belt,” where the “microreplicated layer was comprised of Xylex 7200,” and Claim 5 suggests that the birefringent structure surface is part of a birefringent diffuser).
Regarding Claim 11, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the reflective polarizer further comprises at least one polycarbonate layer deposited on the multilayer optical film (e.g., Xylex 7200 is a polycarbonate, and may be formed on the outer layers of the multilayer optical film, paragraph [0147]).
Regarding Claim 12, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one polycarbonate layer is adhesively bonded to the multilayer optical film by means of a layer of optical adhesive (e.g., paragraphs [0127] and [0138]).
Regarding Claim 13, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the reflective polarizer comprises a further polycarbonate layer, the at least one polycarbonate layer and the further layer being placed on either side of the multilayer optical film (e.g., Xylex 7200 is a polycarbonate, and may be formed on the outer layers of the multilayer optical film, paragraph [0147]).
Regarding Claim 14, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the at least one polycarbonate layer is diffusing (e.g., Claim 3 of Battiato suggests a further birefringent brightness enhancement film, similar to the first with a structure surface, where Claim 5 suggests that such achieves diffusion).
Regarding Claim 15, Battiato would have rendered obvious wherein the optical diffuser has an angular distribution the full width at half maximum of which is less than 45 degrees with respect to a principal direction of diffusion (where Battiato appears silent regarding this feature, however, selecting an angular distribution, based on desired or intended use of the device, would have been obvious as a matter of design choice at the time of effective filing, yielding predictable results, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Regarding Claim 16, Battiato would have rendered obvious a backlighting device comprising: a light source configured to emit a source beam (e.g., paragraph [0124]), a reflector configured to reflect at least a part of the source beam into a reflected beam (paragraph [0124]), a component as claimed in one claim 10 (see above), wherein the first side of the component is placed facing the light source so as to intercept at least a part of the reflected beam (e.g., Claims 1 and 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Battiato would have rendered obvious an image-generating device (e.g., paragraph [0006], applicable to projectors, monitors, and other types of displays) comprising a backlighting device as claimed in claim 16 (see above), wherein it further comprises a liquid-crystal display placed downstream of the reflector on the path of propagation of the light (e.g., paragraph [0124]).
Regarding Claim 18, Battiato would have rendered obvious a head-up display (e.g., paragraph [0006], applicable to projectors, monitors, and other types of displays, reasonably including HUD) comprising an image-generating device as claimed in claim 17 (see above), further comprising a projecting optical system able of steering a light beam generated by the image-generating device in the direction of a partially transparent blade (e.g., paragraph [0006], applicable to projectors, monitors, and other types of displays, which include these common display components, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results from the claim features).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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 at 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights