CTNF 18/845,487 CTNF 81390 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4, 6-8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (US 2024/0111169) in view of Morimoto et al. (WO 2021/182340, a machine translation will be used for examination purposes) . In regard to claim 1, He et al. teach a lens unit to be used in a display system configured to display an image to a user, the lens unit comprising: a reflection-type polarizing member configured to reflect light (element 30 and paragraph 44), which has been emitted to a front side from a display surface of a display element configured to display the image, and has passed through a polarizing member (element 16) and a first λ/4 member (element 18); a first lens portion arranged on an optical path between the display element and the reflection-type polarizing member (element 26); a half mirror arranged between the display element and the first lens portion (element 22 and paragraph 42), the half mirror being configured to transmit the light emitted from the display element and to reflect the light reflected by the reflection-type polarizing member toward the reflection-type polarizing member (fig. 3, R4, R7 and R8); a second lens portion arranged on the front side of the reflection-type polarizing member (element 84); and a second λ/4 member arranged on an optical path between the half mirror and the reflection-type polarizing member (element 18 and paragraph 38), wherein an assembly formed by arranging three first laminate portions each including the second λ/4 member (paragraph 38, He et al. shows the assembly 40 being laminated and including three members) but does not teach at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has an ISC value of 100 or less. Morimoto et al. teach at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has an ISC value of 100 or less (page 3 first full paragraphs, ISC value of 50 or less). The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of He et al. with the pressure-sensitive adhesive and ISC value of Morimoto et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of He et al. with the pressure-sensitive adhesive and ISC value of Morimoto et al. because ensuring the ISC value was low by using the pressure-sensitive adhesive would ensure proper visibility and provide anti-reflection properties. In regard to claim 2, He et al. teach wherein the lens unit comprises a second laminate portion including the reflection-type polarizing member (paragraph 38). In regard to claim 3, He et al. teach wherein the first laminate portion and the second laminate portion are arranged so as to be spaced apart from each other (elements 20 and 40 are apart from each other). In regard to claim 4, He et al. teach wherein the second laminate portion includes a polarizing member arranged between the reflection-type polarizing member and the second lens portion. In regard to claim 6, He et al. teach the second λ/4 member (element 28) but does not wherein the first laminate portion includes a first protective member (element 34) but does not teach an absorption-type polarizing member (He et al. teach a polarizing member but not specifically that is of the absorption type). Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of He et al. and Morimoto et al. with an absorption-type polarizing member. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of He et al. and Morimoto et al. with an absorption-type polarizing member because absorption type polarizing members are old and well-known. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of this old and well-known technology would provide benefits such as reduce glare and reflections in bright environments. Morimoto et al. teach wherein the first laminate portion includes a first protective member (page 11 protective film). The two are analogous art because they both deal with the same field of invention of displays. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of He et al. with the protective film of Morimoto et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of He et al. with the protective film of Morimoto et al. because the protective film would reduce the probability the device is damaged. In regard to claim 7, He et al. teach wherein the number of the adhesive layers in the first laminate portion is three or less (fig. 3, He et al. teach adhesive layers as 32, 36 and 82). Morimoto et al. teach pressure-sensitive adhesive layers (page 3). In regard to claim 8, Morimoto et al. teach wherein a thickness of each of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layers in the first laminate portion is 20 µm or less (page 3 10-20 µm). In regard to claim 10, Morimoto et al. teach wherein each of the pressure- sensitive adhesive layers in the first laminate portion is a single-layer body (elements 12-1, 12-2 and 12-3). In regard to claim 11, He et al. teach wherein the first lens portion and the half mirror are integrated with each other (element 20). In regard to claim 12, He et al. teach a display body (element 10). In regard to claim 13, He et al. teach a display method, comprising the steps of: passing light representing an image, which has been emitted through a polarizing member and a first λ/4 member (fig. 3, light originates from display and passes through elements 16 and 18), through a half mirror and a first lens portion (R3 passes through 22 and 26); passing the light, which has passed through the half mirror and the first lens portion, through a second λ/4 member (element 28 and R5); reflecting the light, which has passed through the second λ/4 member, toward the half mirror with a reflection-type polarizing member (R6 and element 30); enabling the light, which has been reflected by the reflection-type polarizing member and the half mirror, to penetrate through the reflection-type polarizing member with the second λ/4 member (element 28 changes the light to linearly polarized and will pass through reflective polarizer 30); and passing the light, which has penetrated through the reflection-type polarizing member, through a second lens portion (element 84), wherein an assembly formed by arranging three first laminate portions each including the second λ/4 member (paragraph 63). Morimoto et al. teach at least one pressure-sensitive adhesive layer has an ISC value of 100 or less (page 3 first full paragraphs, ISC value of 50 or less) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. in view of Morimoto et al. further considered with Watano et al. (US 2022/0326430) . In regard to claim 9, He et al. and Morimoto et al. teach all the elements of claim 9 except wherein a surface roughness Ra of each of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layers in the first laminate portion is 20 nm or less. Watano et al. teach wherein a surface roughness Ra of each of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layers in the first laminate portion is 20 nm or less (paragraph 269). The three are analogous art because they all deal with the same field of invention of displays. Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the apparatus of He et al. and Morimoto et al. with the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Watano et al. The rationale is as follows: Before the effective filing date it would have been obvious to provide the apparatus of He et al. and Morimoto et al. with the pressure-sensitive adhesive of Watano et al. because using a pressure-sensitive adhesive with a low surface roughness would ensure proper image viewing . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 13-03 AIA The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art fails to teach or make obvious the third λ/4 member in combination with the claim’s other features. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize adding a third λ/4 member would change the operation of the device and require a different arrangement than shown in the prior art . Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH R HALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0574. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-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, Amr Awad can be reached at 571-272-7764. 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. /JOSEPH R HALEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621 Application/Control Number: 18/845,487 Page 2 Art Unit: 2621 Application/Control Number: 18/845,487 Page 3 Art Unit: 2621 Application/Control Number: 18/845,487 Page 4 Art Unit: 2621 Application/Control Number: 18/845,487 Page 5 Art Unit: 2621 Application/Control Number: 18/845,487 Page 6 Art Unit: 2621
Prosecution Insights