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 .
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.
Disposition of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 1-5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Yonemoto (US 20220373729 A1, of record) in view of Hokazono (KR 20080083070 A).
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 9, drawn to a display system and its corresponding operating methods, Yonemoto discloses a display system configured to display an image to a user (see Abstract; Figures 1A-1B; Paragraphs [0002], [0013], [0097]), comprising:
a display element ("image display device 1001") having a display surface configured to emit light representing an image to a front side through a polarizing member ("linear polarizer 1002") (see Figures 1A-1B; Paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0097], [0117]);
a reflection type polarizing member ("reflective polarizer 1006") arranged on the front side of the display element (1001), the reflection type polarizing member (1006) being configured to reflect the light emitted from the display element (1001) (see Figures 1A-1B; Paragraphs [0097], [0098], [0102]);
a first lens portion arranged on an optical path between the display element (1001) and the reflection type polarizing member (1006) (see Figures 1A-1B, 2; Paragraphs [0098], [0429]);
a half mirror (1004) arranged between the display element (1001) and the first lens portion, the half mirror (1004) being configured to transmit the light emitted from the display element (1001) and to reflect the light reflected by the reflecting portion (1006) toward the reflection type polarizing member (1006) (see Figures 1A-1B, 2; Paragraphs [0097], [0098]);
a first lambda/4 member ("first quarter wavelength plate 1003") arranged on an optical path between the display element (1001) and the half mirror (1004) (see Figures 1A-1B; Paragraphs [0097], [0098], [0100], [0101], [0125], [0140]); and
a second lambda/4 member ("second quarter wavelength plate 1005") arranged on an optical path between the half mirror (1004) and the reflection type polarizing member (1006) (see Figures 1A-1B; Paragraphs [0097], [0098], [0100], [0101], [0125], [0142]),
a protective member (¶440) arranged on the optical path between the display element and the half mirror (“A polarizer protective film may be disposed on the surface of the polarizer. The polarizer protective film may be disposed on only one side or both sides of the polarizer. The polarizer mentioned here includes all of the linear polarizer 1002, the linear polarizer 1007, the reflective polarizer 1006, and the reflection circular polarizer 1008.”),
wherein a space is formed between the protective member and the half mirror (e.g. Fig. 1A, there being interelement spaces).
Yonemoto does not explicitly show wherein protective member has a maximum value for a 5 degree specular reflectance spectrum in a wavelength range of from 420 nm to 680 nm of 1.2% or less.
Hokazono drawn to optical laminates explicitly shows the use of an antireflection film as a protective film (“When the antireflection film is used as one of the protective films of the polarizer …”) and identically discloses its performance as claimed (Claim 1, “The average value in the 450-650 nm wavelength range of the specular reflectance in a 5 degree incidence angle is 0.5% or less”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the protective film of Hokazono in the device of Yonemoto for the purpose of protection and improved optical performance, e.g. reducing stray light, improving brightness, etc.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the modified Yonemoto teaches the display system of claim 1, and having directly taught an antireflective protective member is considered to further discloses the claimed range with sufficient specificity so as to anticipate it.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Yonemoto teaches the display system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the protective member has a surface smoothness of 0.5 arcmin or less (Hokazono, “The antireflective film of the present invention preferably contains an adhesive layer in contact with the lower surface of the low refractive layer, wherein the surface of the adhesive layer has a centerline average roughness (Ra) of 0.001 to 0.030 μm.” i.e. 0.5 arcmin or less).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Yonemoto teaches the display system of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first lambda/4 member satisfies Re(450)<Re(550) (¶93-94).
Claim 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified Yonemoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinchi (US 20200115083 A1).
Regarding claim 6 and 7, the modified Yonemoto teaches the display system of claim 1, but does not explicitly show wherein the display system comprises a laminate portion including the first X/4 member and the protective member.
Shinchi drawn to retardation layer laminates explicitly shows wherein the display system comprises a laminate portion including the first lambda/4 member, polarizing member, and the protective member (Fig. 2, protective layer 12, polarizer 11, and quarter wave retardation layers 71 and 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to have utilized the laminate of Shinchi to improve the display system of the modified Yonemoto for the purpose of suppressing cracks (Shinchi, “By using an adhesive for lamination of the retardation layer, the effect of suppressing cracks can be made more remarkable”).
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 1-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No 18/845,607.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other since the differences concerning lens portions arranged on the reflection type polarizing member are known from the prior art detailed above, e.g. Shinchi (¶430), and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention on the same basis.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached on 5712723689. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights