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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted 8/12/26 have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Applicant argues, in substance:
(1) A. the new limitations of claim 1 are not met because the light incident surface is not on a lateral surface (Remarks, p. 7, 12);
B. does not meet the UV related limitations (p. 9), and the application’s specification provides the relations with the UV (p. 13);
C. the different size limitation is not met (p. 10);
D. as best understood, the pattern of prism ridges repeats and so the limitation is not met (p. 11);
(2) Applicant challenges the holding of Official Notice.
With respect to issue 1-A, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “top, bottom, and lateral”) have been given a broadest reasonable interpretation. MPEP 2111-2111.01. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is noted that relative positioning is common foundational principle in physics. Simply turning one’s head to the side or rotating an object can redefine top, bottom, lateral. The claim does not require a particular orientation an relations.
With respect to issue 1-B, the limitations were identified and correlated with the references as indicated below and in the first office action on the merits. Further, Cha Figs. 8, 13, and 14 clarify the UV interaction of the film. It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123. Also see MPEP 1207.03(a)(ID (as cited by MPEP 706.07(a)).
With respect to issue 1-C, this argument is not understood, since the sizes are plainly shown to be different, as discussed in the rejection. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention disclosed by Applicant, the language of Applicant's claims is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s).
With respect to issues 1-D, again, this argument is not understood, since the claims does not require that the pattern is not repetitive. Although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention disclosed by Applicant, the language of Applicant's claims is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to issue (2), please see the new ground(s) of rejection for claim 12 (along with the additionally cited references), which was made in response to Applicant's challenge to the taking of Official Notice, pursuant to MPEP §2144.03D.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cha (US 20220099869).
Regarding claim 1, Cha discloses A light guide film (Title – optical sheet and display device), comprising (i.e., open language for the claim, MPEP 2111.03):
a base material layer (as defined by the following limitations) comprising (i.e., open language for the base material layer)
a top surface (i.e., left side of Fig. 4: 700 – light guide plate), a bottom surface (i.e., right side of 700 – light guide plate), and two lateral end surfaces (i.e., other sides of 700 between and facing layers 310 and 800), wherein the lateral end surfaces connect the top surface with the bottom surface (i.e., they are contiguous), and one of the lateral end surfaces is a light incident surface (700 – light guide plate, i.e., the 310 side; note that the claim does not require particular orientation and, without it, relative positioning may be rotated);
an upper ultraviolet adhesive layer disposed above the base material layer (620 – adhesive layer; para. 171 indicates UV curable resins may be used for the adhesive layers);
a lower ultraviolet adhesive layer disposed below the base material layer (610 – adhesive layer; para. 171 indicates UV curable resins may be used for the adhesive layers);
two optical adhesive layers (i.e., interpreted as “at least two…” due to comprising claim language) disposed above the upper ultraviolet adhesive layer (e.g., 320 – second function al coating layer, 400 – reflective polarizing film) and below the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer respectively (e.g., 211 – first base layer, 212 – first prism layer) (note: the claim does not require “two and only two optical adhesive layers” to overcome the open “comprising” language of the claim); and
a light incident microstructure unit (as defined by the following limitations) comprising (i.e. open language for the light incident microstructure unit) a first microstructure region (310 – first functional coating layer; 310 may comprise beads 311 and binder resin 312) and disposed on (i.e., above, with or without intervening layers/elements) the light incident surface of the base material layer (700 – light guide plate) (note: the claim does not specify that the light incident surface is the first surface to receive light or that it is in a plane perpendicular to the plane of the other film layers – see application Fig. 2, element 5, which is likely the inventive feature).
Regarding claim 2, the reference further discloses The light guide film of claim 1, wherein the light incident microstructure unit further comprises: a second microstructure region (i.e., unquantified, thus the respective layers meet this limitation) disposed on (i.e., above, layered with) two end surfaces (e.g., left, right in fig 4) of the upper ultraviolet adhesive layer and the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer respectively (first and second functional layers 310 and 320) and near to the light incident surface of the base material layer (i.e., “near” is an unquantified value; the film is small, so all the layers are considered “near” the base layer).
Regarding claim 3, the reference further discloses 3. The light guide film of claim 2, wherein the light incident microstructure unit comprises: a plurality of microstructures, wherein each of the microstructures within the first microstructure region has a first depth, and each of the microstructures within the second microstructure region has a second depth, wherein the first depth is larger than the second depth (i.e., the beads in 310 appear smaller than 320, creating a presumption thereto).
Regarding claim 9, the reference further discloses 9. The light guide film of claim 1, wherein the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer comprises: an inclined part (via 212 first prism pattern layer, first inclined side); and a flat part (via 212 first prism pattern layer, second inclined side), wherein the inclined part is near to the light incident surface of the base material layer (i.e., together with it via the system), and the flat part extends from the inclined part in a direction away from the light incident surface of the base material layer (via 212 first prism pattern layer, second inclined side).
Regarding claim 10, the reference further discloses 10. A front light module (Fig. 3: 1 – display device; “front is not defined by the claim”), comprising (open language, MPEP 2111.03): the light guide film of claim 1 (10 – backlight unit, Fig. 4), and the upper ultraviolet adhesive layer of the light guide film comprises a plurality of reflective microstructures (i.e., beads); and a light emitting unit disposed opposite to a light incident side of light guide film (900-light source).
Regarding claim 11, the reference further discloses 11. A reflective display, comprising: the front light module of claim 10 (Fig. 3); an optical component disposed above the light guide film (the “above” direction is not defined by the claim); and a reflective display panel disposed below the light guide film (10 – backlight unit; Fig. 4).
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:
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 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha.
Regarding claim 4-8, Cha discloses refractive index options (e.g., para. 107, 164 – refractive index).
Cha does not explicitly discloses [claim 4] a refractive index of the base material layer is larger than a refractive index of the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer, and a difference in between is D1; [claim 5] an absolute difference between the refractive index of the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer and a refractive index of the optical adhesive layer near to the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer is D2, wherein the absolute difference satisfies an inequality: 0 ≤ D2 < D1; [claim 6] a refractive index of the base material layer is smaller than a refractive index of the upper ultraviolet adhesive layer; [claim 7] a refractive index of the base material layer is equal to a refractive index of the upper ultraviolet adhesive layer; [claim 8] a refractive index of the lower ultraviolet adhesive layer is smaller than a refractive index of the upper ultraviolet adhesive layer.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Considered a result effective variable (MPEP 2144.05(III)(C)), the general conditions are met in Cha because it discloses general use options regarding the refractive index. Further, adjusting the thicknesses and respective ratios of the refractive indices to optimize the image quality to desired results is expected to be within the skill of an ordinary artisan. As was noted in In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) at 237, where the court quotes the Board of Appeals it is noted that failure to perform the experiments for commercial exploitation would “show a want of the expected skill of the engineer.”
Therefore, it obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thicknesses and respective ratios of the refractive indices of Cha’s film to optimize the image quality.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cha in view of Mori (US 20180101261).
Regarding claim 12, the reference does not further disclose the optical component is a touch sensor.
Cha and Mori are related as display devices.
Yu discloses the optical component a touch sensor as part of display (title, abstr), as it is and has been highly desirable in the market for the last decade, approximately, to enjoy touch activation.
Therefore, it obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the optical component a touch sensor, as it is and has been highly desirable in the market for the last decade, approximately, to enjoy touch activation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 11063239 & US 20200401259 are both further informative regarding a display device with touch sensor and optical film.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER D. CARRUTH whose telephone number is (571)272-9791, who can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 Supervisory Examiner Carruth by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Director Allana L Bidder, can be reached on 571-272-5560. 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.
/JENNIFER D. CARRUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights