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 .
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.
Claim 21-24,31,32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of U.S. Patent No. 12153302. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Claim 21,31 are obvious to Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12153302
Claim 22,32 are obvious to Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12153302
Claim 23 is obvious to Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12153302
Claim 24 is obvious to Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12153302
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 (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.
Claim(s) 21,24-28,30,31,34-37,39, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Wada (US 6474824)
Regarding Claim 21,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure below) a first substrate (See pasted figure below) including a first end portion (at right in Fig. 2 and at top in Fig. 4); a second substrate (on top of the first substrate) including a second end portion (at right in Fig. 2 and top of Fig. 4) adjacent to the first end portion, and a third end portion (at left in Fig. 2); a liquid crystal layer (where 21 is located) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate (shown in pasted figure below); a light source device (21) located along the third end portion (shown in Fig. 5 light source 11 can be on the other side of where 22 is pointing to); a reflective member (31); and a third substrate (22) including a fourth end portion adjacent to the second end portion, wherein the second end portion and the third end portion are separate from each other, and the reflective member (24) covers the second end portion, the third end portion, and the fourth end portion (as shown in Fig. 3).
[AltContent: textbox (Third Substrate and Fourth end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Substrate Third end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second substrate and Second end portion)][AltContent: textbox (First substrate and first end portion)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
324
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 24,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are parallel in a cross-sectional view.
Regarding Claim 25,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the second substrate includes a surface intersecting the second end portion, and the surface, the second end portion, and the fourth end portion form a step.
Regarding Claim 26,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above), wherein the reflective member (24) is separated on the surface.
Regarding Claim 27,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the reflective member (24) covers the surface.
Regarding Claim 28,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the second substrate and the third substrate face each other without being separated by a polarizer in between
Regarding Claim 30,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) a diffusing member between the second end portion and the reflective member. (“... In this case, a method is possible which yields sufficient in-plane uniformity of illumination light, even in the light-source-adjacent region Va, by diffusing light by a light-scattering plate or the like interposed between the point light sources 21 and the light guide plate 22…”)
Regarding Claim 31,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) a first substrate including a first end portion; a second substrate including a second end portion adjacent to the first end portion, and a third end portion; a liquid crystal layer (where 21 is located) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate; a light source device (21) located along the third end portion; a diffusing member (“... In this case, a method is possible which yields sufficient in-plane uniformity of illumination light, even in the light-source-adjacent region Va, by diffusing light by a light-scattering plate or the like interposed between the point light sources 21 and the light guide plate 22…”); and a third substrate (22) including a fourth end portion adjacent to the second end portion, wherein the second end portion and the third end portion are separate from each other, and the diffusing member covers the second end portion, the third end portion, and the fourth end portion.
Regarding Claim 34,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the first end portion and the second end portion are parallel in a cross-sectional view.
Regarding Claim 35,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the second substrate includes a surface intersecting the second end portion, and the surface, the second end portion, and the fourth end portion form a step.
Regarding Claim 36,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the diffusing member (“... In this case, a method is possible which yields sufficient in-plane uniformity of illumination light, even in the light-source-adjacent region Va, by diffusing light by a light-scattering plate or the like interposed between the point light sources 21 and the light guide plate 22…”) is separated on the surface.
Regarding Claim 37,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the diffusing member covers the surface second substrate; a light source device (21) located along the third end portion; a diffusing member (“... In this case, a method is possible which yields sufficient in-plane uniformity of illumination light, even in the light-source-adjacent region Va, by diffusing light by a light-scattering plate or the like interposed between the point light sources 21 and the light guide plate 22…”)
Regarding Claim 39,
Wada discloses (Fig. 1 to Fig. 4 and see pasted figure above) wherein the second substrate and the third substrate face each other without being separated by a polarizer in between.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 22,23,29,32,33,38, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 6474824) in view of (CN 104516122 A)
Regarding Claim 22,32,
Wada discloses everything as disclosed above.
Wada does not disclose the liquid crystal layer includes a polymer and a liquid crystal molecule.
(CN 104516122 A) discloses the liquid crystal layer includes a polymer and a liquid crystal molecule.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wada to include (CN 104516122 A)’s liquid crystal layer includes a polymer and a liquid crystal molecule motivated by the desire to provide a significant optical effect [0200].
Regarding Claim 23, 33,
In addition to Wada and (CN 104516122 A) , (CN 104516122 A) discloses wherein the liquid crystal layer includes a polymer formed of a polymeric material and liquid crystal molecules dispersed in the polymer [0200].
Regarding Claim 29,38,
Wada discloses everything as disclosed above.
Wada does not disclose wherein an outer shape of the second substrate has a curved shape.
(CN 104516122 A) discloses wherein an outer shape of the second substrate has a curved shape [0180].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wada to include (CN 104516122 A)’s outer shape of the second substrate has a curved shape [0180] motivated by the desire to provide variable optical functions (ABSTRACT).
Claim(s) 40, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada (US 6474824) in view of Usukura et al (US 20110025956)
Regarding Claim 40,
Wada discloses everything as disclosed above.
Wada does not disclose wherein the diffusing member is an anisotropically diffusing member.
Usukura et al discloses wherein the diffusing member is an anisotropically diffusing member [0023].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wada to include Usukura et al’s diffusing member is an anisotropically diffusing member [0023] motivated by the desire to provide display in which the viewing angle is not increased along the first direction, but the viewing angle is further increased along the second direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCY P CHIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8579. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM PST Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.
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 Caley can be reached at 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 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.
/LUCY P CHIEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871