CTNF 18/857,872 CTNF 72237 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. Remark This Office Action is in response to applicant’s preliminary amendment filed on October 18, 2024, which has been entered into the file. By this amendment, the applicant has canceled claims 1-15 and has newly added claims 16-31. Claims 16-31 remain pending in this application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication by Okamoto (US 2017/0371077 A1) . Okamoto teaches, with regard to claim 30, a method for fabricating a light beam direction control element serves as the light control film that is comprised of a step of providing a plurality of first films (shown in Figure 7D), each of the first film having an orthogonal length and width and comprising a plurality of alternating optically transparent first regions (19 or 22, Figures 7B to 7D) and plurality of light absorbing second regions (23). Okamoto teaches that the transparent regions are made of PET film, (please see paragraph [0052]) which makes the plurality transparent first regions transparent polymeric first regions. Okamoto teaches the absorbing second regions (23) are made of epoxy based resin, (please see paragraph [0055]) which makes the absorbing second regions light absorbing polymeric second regions, (please see Figure 7D). Okamoto teaches that the first and second regions (22 and 23) extending along length and arranged along the width each first region having a thickness along a thickness direction orthogonal to the length and width. Okamoto teaches the method further comprises step of forming a stack of the first films along thickness direction, (please see Figure 7F). Okamoto teaches a thermally curable transparent adhesive (16, Figure 7E to 7G) which covers the entire upper surfaces of the light control film to adhere the stack of first films along thickness direction together. The thermally curable adhesive requires the application of heat to the stack of first films at least one direction orthogonal to the length resulting an integral block comprising optically transparent columns formed form the first regions (14, Figure 7G) wherein the columns are arranged to define a plurality of parallel alternating planar rows of columns and planar rows of continuous light absorbing polymeric material (13, Figure 7G). Okamoto teaches that the adhesive has a film thickness of about 5 to 10 m m, (please see paragraph [0049]) which there modify the thickness of the polymeric first regions, (please see Figures 7F and 7G). Okamoto teaches that in at least one cross-section orthogonal to the thickness direction and for each pair of a plurality of adjacent columns (14, Figure 8) the adjacent columns are nested and separated by the light absorbing material (13, please see paragraphs [0064] to [0068]). This reference has therefore anticipated the claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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) 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Mimura et al (US 2007/0268586 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Schmidt et al (US 2020/0400865 A1) . Mimura et al teaches, with regard to claim 16, a micro-louver (55, Figure 5) serves as the light control film that is comprised of an opposing planar parallel first and second major surfaces spaced apart along a thickness direction of the light control film by a thickness of about 100 microns, which is less than 500 microns, and a plurality of parallel optically transparent columns (13) disposed in and surrounded by a light absorbing material (12). Mimura et al teaches that each of the transparent columns having a first column end at the first major surface and an opposite second column end at the second major surface, (please see Figure 5). The first column ends are arranged to define a plurality of parallel alternating linear rows of the first column ends and linear rows of continuous light absorbing material, (please see 5, Figure 4 and 13, Figure 7F), wherein for each pair of a plurality of first column ends the adjacent first column ends are nested and separated by the light absorbing material, (please see Figure 7F). Mimura et al teaches that the transparent columns (13, Figure 5) are made of polymer (39, Figure 8A, please see paragraph [0065]). The light absorbing material (12) is made of polymer photo-absorbent fluid (58, Figures 8E and 9A, paragraph [0072]). Mimura et al teaches that the micro-louver has a height of 100 microns and the width of the transparent column has a value of 50 microns, (please see paragraph [0061]) which means the micro-louver or the light control film has an aspect ratio of 2. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the aspect ratio has a valuer of 3 or greater. Schmidt et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a light control film wherein the aspect ratio for the transparent columns (130, Figure 1a) may have values 3 or greater, (please see paragraph [0021]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to apply the teachings of Schmidt et al to modify the transparent columns of the light control film to each have an aspect ratio greater than 3 for the benefit of allowing the light control film to have a desired viewing angle, since as explicitly shown in Figure 1b of Schmidt et al, the aspect ratio affects the viewing angle of the light control film. With regard to claim 17, Mimura et al teaches that the rows of continuous light absorbing polymeric material (12) are thinner than the rows of first column ends, (please see Figure 7F). With regard to claim 18, Mimura et al teaches that the first column ends of each row of first column ends (13) are separated by light absorbing polymeric material (12, Figures 5 and 7F). With regard to claim 19, Mimura et al teaches that for each pair of the plurality of adjacent polymeric columns (13) the adjacent polymeric columns have adjacent sides facing each other and concave toward a same direction, (please see Figures 7A and 7C). With regard to claim 20, Mimura et al teaches as demonstrated in Figure 7F, the in plane aspect ratio may be less than 5, (i.e. maximum dimension divided by minimum dimension). With regard to claim 21, Mimura et al teaches as demonstrated in Figure 7A, the plurality of first column ends is more periodic along a first direction (such as horizontal direction) and less periodic along a second direction (such as vertical direction) wherein the first and second directions are orthogonal to each other. With regard to claims 22-24, Mimura et al teaches that the first column ends may define a plurality of parallelogram shapes, (please see Figures 7D and 7F) arranged into a plurality of parallel linear rows that at least some of the parallelogram shape have no right angles. It is noted that the Mimura et al does not teach that the first column ends shown in Figure 7F have a shape of square, so the shape is more of a parallelogram that does not have right angles. As shown in Figures 7D and 7F, there may be more than 70 percents of the parallelogram shape have no right angles. With regard to claim 25, Schmidt et al teaches that for an incident light in the visible wavelength range, the light control film has an optical transmittance or luminance versus the incident angle in a first incidence plane with a peak transmittance greater than 2% and has a corresponding first full width at half maximum of between 5 degrees and about 120 degrees, (please see Figure 6) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mimura et al and Schmidt et al as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of the US patent issued to Miyashita (PN. 7,703,969) . The micro-louver serves as the light control film taught by Mimura et al in combination with the teachings of Schmidt et al as described in claim 16 above has met all the limitations of the claim. With regard to claim 16, Schmidt et al teaches the light control film has an optical transmittance or luminance versus the incident angle in a first incidence plane with a first FWHM, but it does not teach explicitly to have an optical transmittance versus incident angle of the incident light in a second incident plane. Miyashita et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a light control film or light deflecting film (15, Figures 2 and 3) that have a transmittance versus incident angle in a first incident plane (i.e. ZY plane, curve 16, Figure 4) with a first FWHM and a transmittance versus incident angle in a second incident plane (i.e. XY plane, curve 18, Figure 4) with a second FWHM, (please see column 4, lines 51-60). The first FWHM is different from the second FWHM. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Miyashita et al to make the light control film of Mimura et al to also have a transmittance in different incident plane. Although the peaks for the two curves are not different from each other, such modification would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to make the light control film has desired properties . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent application publication by Mimura et al (US 2007/0268586 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Schmidt et al (US 2020/0400865 A1) . Mimura et al teaches, with regard to claim 27, a micro-louver (55, Figure 5) serves as the light control film that is comprised of an opposing planar parallel first and second major surfaces spaced apart along a thickness direction of the light control film by a thickness of about 100 microns, which is less than 750 microns, and a plurality of parallel optically transparent columns (13) disposed in and surrounded by a light absorbing material (12). Mimura et al teaches that each of the transparent columns having a first column end at the first major surface and an opposite second column end at the second major surface, (please see Figure 5). The first column ends of at least one pair of adjacent first and second columns comprise respective first and second non-straight sides facing one another to define complementary shapes, (please see Figures 7A, 7C and 7F). The transparent columns (13) are arranged to define a plurality of parallel alternating planar rows of columns and planar rows of continuous light absorbing material (12). Mimura et al teaches that the transparent columns (13, Figure 5) are made of polymer (39, Figure 8A, please see paragraph [0065]). The light absorbing material (12) is made of polymer photo-absorbent fluid (58, Figures 8E and 9A, paragraph [0072]). Mimura et al teaches that the micro-louver has a height of 100 microns and the width of the transparent column has a value of 50 microns, (please see paragraph [0061]) which means the micro-louver or the light control film has an aspect ratio of 2. This reference however does not teach explicitly that the aspect ratio has a value of 3 or greater. Schmidt et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a light control film wherein the aspect ratio for the transparent columns (130, Figure 1a) may have values 3 or greater, (please see paragraph [0021]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of invention to apply the teachings of Schmidt et al to modify the transparent columns of the light control film to each have an aspect ratio greater than 3 for the benefit of allowing the light control film to have a desired viewing angle, since as explicitly shown in Figure 1b of Schmidt et al, the aspect ratio affects the viewing angle of the light control film. With regard to claim 28, Mimura et al teaches that for each pair of plurality of adjacent transparent polymeric columns (13) are nested and separated by the light absorbing polymeric material (12, Figures 7A, 7C and 7F). With regard to claim 29, Schmidt et al teaches that for an incident light in the visible wavelength range (i.e. wavelength 400 nm to 700 nm), the light control film has an optical transmittance or luminance versus the incident angle in a first incidence plane with a peak transmittance greater than 2% and has a corresponding first full width at half maximum of between 5 degrees and about 120 degrees, (please see Figure 6) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Okamoto (US 2017/0371077 A1) in view of the US patent application publication by Kobayashi et al (US 2006/0066779 A1) . Okamoto teaches a method for fabricating a light beam direction control element serves as the light control film as described in claim 30. With regard to claim 31, Okamoto does not teach explicitly that each of the first films comprises at least one light absorbing layer coextensive with the first film along the length and width. But as shown in Figures 12 A and 12B, it is known in the art to have at least one of the light absorbing layer coextensive with the first film along the length and width. Kobayashi et al in the same field of endeavor teaches to have light shielding layer (6, Figure 1) coextensive with the film. It would then have been obvious to apply the teachings disclosed in Figures 12A and 12B of Okamoto et al and Kobayashi et al to make the light absorbing layer be coextensive with the light beam direction control element or the first film for the benefit of having the light absorbing layer define the boundary of the first film . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US patent application publication by Usami (US 2008/0062846 A1) teaches a light control film that has an aspect ratio between 2 to 100, (please see paragraph [0098]) . . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM. 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, Stephone B Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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. AUDREY Y. CHANG Primary Examiner Art Unit 2872 /AUDREY Y CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/857,872 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights