CTNF 18/859,841 CTNF 93071 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. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Response to Amendment Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1-11 are currently amended. The amendment dated October 24, 2024 has been entered into the record. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2024, 10/23/2025 and 01/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 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 the limitation "the microlenses" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because in claim 1, there is no “microlenses”, it is unclear which microlenses it refers to. Thereby as being indefinite, claim 1 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "the microlenses" to be “microlenses”. Claims 2-11 are rejected because they depend upon claim 1; they are likewise rejected under the same rationale as that set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 11 further recites the limitation "the reflective light component" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because in claims 1 and 11, there is no “a reflective light component”, but instead, for example, “a reflective embodiment”, it is unclear which reflective light component it refers to. Thereby as being indefinite, claim 11 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted "the reflective light component" to be “a reflective light component”. 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 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 1, 3-5, 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito et al. (US 20180299730, hereinafter “Saito”) in view of Eble (US 20200084850) . Regarding claim 1 , Saito discloses a display device (Para. [0030] “a liquid crystal display device (LCD)”) comprising a display panel (Para. [0030] “a liquid crystal panel”) for linearly polarized light (Para. [0033]), a light source (14 in Fig. 4) for unpolarized light (Para. [0059] “LED”), and a polarization recycler (44, 42, 24, 22, 32, 34), the polarization recycler comprising: a microlens arrangement (42 comprising 44; Para. [0100]); a perforated mask (24; Para. [0039]) with a reflective embodiment (22; Para. [0047] “the emission-side reflection surface 22 is a specular reflection surface”) on its side facing away from the microlens arrangement; a retarder (32; Para. [0063] “the λ/4 film 32”); and a reflective polarizer (34; Para. [0063] “the linearly polarized light reflection film 34”), Saito does not explicitly disclose microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged without gaps. However, Eble teaches microlenses of a microlens arrangement without gaps (see 112(b) rejections above) (52 on 44 adjoined each other without gaps in Fig. 2; Para. [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the microlens arrangement as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Eble, wherein microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged without gaps, for the purpose of maximizing the transmission of the microlens substrate (Eble: Para. [0053]). Regarding claim 3 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the microlens arrangement comprises a main body with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another (see 42 comprising a main body in Fig. 4), the microlenses are arranged on one main face thereof, and the perforated mask is arranged on the other main face thereof (see Fig. 4). Regarding claim 4 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the perforated mask is arranged in a focal plane of the microlens arrangement (see Para. [0096] teaching 44 converges light on the emission side of 20, thereby indicating 24 is being arranged in a focal plane of 42). Regarding claim 5 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the perforated mask is embodied as a reflective coating (Para. [0047] “the emission-side reflection surface 22 is a specular reflection surface”). Regarding claim 7 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Saito does not explicitly disclose further comprising a transparent support with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the perforated mask is arranged on one main face thereof, and wherein either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged on the other main face thereof. However, Saito teaches the perforated mask and either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged at a distance from one another (see Fig. 4), and light is propagating therebetween (see L in Fig. 1; Para. [0034]). Because two optical members are arranged at a distance from one another and light should be able to propagate therebetween, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Saito, to have a transparent support with two substantially parallel main faces arranged at a distance from one another, wherein the perforated mask is arranged on one main face thereof, and wherein either the retarder or both the retarder and the reflective polarizer are arranged on the other main face thereof, for the purpose of forming a display device (Saito: Para. [0033]-[0034]). Regarding claim 8 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the microlenses of the microlens arrangement have a rectangular aperture (Para. [0103]). Regarding claim 11 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the reflective polarizer is aligned parallel to the perforated mask (see Fig. 4) such that the reflective light component is rotated in terms of its polarization by two passages through the retarder and is superimposed on the directly transmitted component at the reflective polarizer as a result of the reflection at the perforated mask (see 112(b) rejections above) (see Para. [0063] teaching 32 is the λ/4 film, thereby 32 is capable of rotating the polarization such that the light can pass through the reflective polarizer 34) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Drinkwater (US 20100085642) . Regarding claim 2 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the microlenses of the microlens arrangement convert parallel incoming light beams into outgoing light beams with a conical distribution that has a defined opening angle (see Paras. [0096]-[0097] teaching 44, which converts the incoming light by converging it, comprises, for example, a truncated cone shape; the examiner considers a lens having a truncated cone shape creates beams with a conical distribution that has an opening angle based on its corresponding cross section). Saito does not explicitly disclose the incoming light beams being parallel incoming light beams. However, Drinkwater teaches known light sources emit light including parallel light beams (see Fig. 17A1-17B1 teaching various incoming light beams for microlenses, including parallel incoming light beams in Fig. 17A1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the display device as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Drinkwater to have parallel incoming light beams, for the purpose of using light sources to provide light for microlenses (Drinkwater: Para. [0158]) and as conventionally known in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Hoffmuller et al. ( US 20110045248, hereinafter “Hoffmuller”) . Regarding claim 6 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 3 above, Saito does not explicitly disclose the main body is embodied as a foil. However, Hoffmuller teaches a main body is embodied as a foil (Fig. 4 and Para. [0109]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the forming a microlens arrangement using a foil (Hoffmuller: Para. [0109]) and as conventionally known in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Tanabe (US 20200310114) . Regarding claim 9 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above. Saito does not explicitly disclose the microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged in decentered fashion. However, Tanabe teaches microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged in decentered fashion (Fig. 23 and Para. [0167] “in a random lens array, the displacement of the vertex of each one of the multiple microlenses from the center of the microlens is irregular”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the perforated mask as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Tanabe, wherein the microlenses of the microlens arrangement are arranged in decentered fashion, for the purpose of improving the visibility of the image (Tanabe: Para. [0168]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saito in view of Eble, and in further view of Hyobu (US 20090009861) . Regarding claim 10 , Saito as modified by Eble discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Saito further discloses wherein the perforated mask comprises holes (24a) arranged in a structure, and each of these holes is assigned a microlens (see Fig. 4). Saito does explicitly disclose the structure being an irregular structure. However, Hyobu teaches providing holes arranged in an irregular structure (see 81’s in Figs. 10A-10B; see also Fig. 7 teaching the microlens 70 and holes 81). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the perforated mask as disclosed by Saito with the teachings of Hyobu, to have an irregular structure, for the purpose of eliminating moire (Hyobu: Para. [0020]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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 H Caley can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 2 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 3 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 4 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 5 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 6 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 7 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 8 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 9 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/859,841 Page 10 Art Unit: 2871
Prosecution Insights