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 .
Claims 1-12 are currently pending in the present application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 14 November 2024 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Re: claim 1, the limitation “the light” in line 15 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-4, 6, 8, and 10-12 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.
Re: claim 2, the meaning of the limitation “the second surface is in contact with a low-refractive layer having a refractive index which is lower than the polarization control layer” is unclear. It is not clear as to what the low-refractive layer refractive index is being compared to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning that the second surface is in contact with a low-refractive layer having a refractive index which is lower than the refractive index of the polarization control layer.
In addition, the meaning of the limitation “low-refractive layer” is unclear. The term “low” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Re: claim 3, the meaning of the limitation “configured to reflect first circularly polarized having…” is unclear. It is not clear as to what noun is being modified by the phrase “first circularly polarized.” For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning “configured to reflect first circularly polarized light having…”
Re: claims 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, because they depend upon claim 3, they are likewise rejected.
Re: claim 11, the meaning of the limitation “the polarization control layer has a thickness which is equal to the liquid crystal layer” is unclear. It is not clear what the polarization control layer’s thickness is being compared to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning that the polarization control layer has a thickness which is equal to the thickness of the liquid crystal layer.
Re: claim 12, the meaning of the limitation “the polarization control layer has a thickness which is equal to the liquid crystal layer” is unclear. It is not clear what the polarization control layer’s thickness is being compared to. For the purpose of examining the present claim, the limitation has been construed as meaning that the polarization control layer has a thickness which is equal to the thickness of the liquid crystal layer.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Niiyama (US20230140492).
Re: claim 1, Niiyama discloses a transparent substrate 20 (Fig. 1; para. 86 discloses transparent); a liquid crystal layer 16 (Fig. 1; para. 100 discloses cholesteric liquid crystal) provided above the transparent substrate (Fig. 1 discloses provision), including a cholesteric liquid crystal (para. 100 discloses cholesteric LC), and configured to reflect first circularly polarized light having a same direction as a twist direction of the cholesteric liquid crystal (capability disclosed in at least para. 105 which states “The helical structure reflects circularly polarized light incident in a direction parallel to the helical axis, the circularly polarized light having the same direction as the circling direction of the helical structure;” see also MPEP § 2114.II, where it has been held that a claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be deployed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim ); and a polarization control layer 16 provided on the liquid crystal layer (provision disclosed in Fig. 1 where the LC layer and the polarization control layer are element 16), and configured to control a polarization state of second circularly polarized light having a direction opposite to the first circularly polarized light, totally reflect the second circularly polarized light which passed through the liquid crystal layer and emit the light to the liquid crystal layer as the second circularly polarized light (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1 & para. 124 which states “[T]he selective reflection film 16 transmits a large portion of the polarized light Fp. The partial reflection film reflects a portion of the polarized light Fp as the polarized light Rp. The polarized light Rp has a reversed circling direction of circularly polarized light with respect to the polarized light Fp. The selective reflection film 16 reflects a large portion of the polarized light Rp as the polarized light Fp;” where para. 125 states “[S]hown in Fig. 1, circularly polarized light interchanges the circling directions each time a reflection is performed…Thus, circularly polarized light is preferentially output from the partial reflection film 111 side while repeating multiple reflection.” In addition, see MPEP § 2114.II).
Re: claim 7, Niiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Niiyama further discloses that the polarization control layer 16 is a thin film including a nematic liquid crystal (para. 100 discloses cholesteric, which is a chiral nematic material).
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 (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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niiyama.
Re: claim 2, Niiyama discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Niiyama further discloses that . the polarization control layer 16 has a first surface (Fig. 1, where the first surface is the right vertically extending surface of 16), and a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface (Fig. 1, where the opposite surface is the left vertically extending surface of 16), and the second surface is in contact with a low-refractive layer 19 having a refractive index which is lower than the polarization control layer (para. 129 discloses that layer 19 is air). Niiyama does not explicitly disclose that the first surface of polarization control layer faces the liquid crystal layer because the polarization control layer and the liquid crystal layer are both represented by element 16. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polarization control layer and the liquid crystal be separate components for the purpose of reducing the cost and complexity of repairing the optical element by replacing only the damaged or non-functional layer.
Re: claims 3 and 4, Niiyama discloses a transparent substrate 20 (Fig. 1; para. 86 discloses transparent); a liquid crystal layer 16 including a cholesteric liquid crystal (Fig. 1; para. 100 discloses cholesteric liquid crystal), and configured to reflect first circularly polarized having a same direction as a twist direction of the cholesteric liquid crystal (capability disclosed in at least para. 105 which states “The helical structure reflects circularly polarized light incident in a direction parallel to the helical axis, the circularly polarized light having the same direction as the circling direction of the helical structure;” see also MPEP § 2114.II) and transmit second circularly polarized light having a direction opposite to the first circularly polarized light (capability disclosed in at least para. 106 which states “The helical structure transmits circularly polarized light incident in the direction parallel to the helical axis, the circularly polarized light having a direction opposite to the circling direction of the helical structure;” see also MPEP § 2114.II); and a polarization control layer 11, 16, wherein the polarization control layer is configured to twice transmit the first circularly polarized light reflected on the liquid crystal layer 16 and emit the light to the liquid crystal layer as the first circularly polarized light (capability disclosed in at least Fig. 1, where approximately five reflections are disclosed; see also paras. 124-126; see also MPEP § 2114.II).
Niiyama does not explicitly disclose that the polarization control layer is between the transparent substrate and the liquid crystal layer and that a first surface of the polarization control layer faces the liquid crystal layer and a second surface of the polarization control layer faces the transparent substrate. However, Niiyama does disclose that both the polarization control layer 16 and the liquid crystal layer 16 are adjacent to the transparent substrate 20 (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polarization control layer and liquid crystal layer be separate layers and to have the polarization control layer to be in between the liquid crystal layer and the transparent substrate for the purposes of reducing the cost and complexity of repairing the optical element by replacing only the damaged or non-functional layer and of improving the brightness of the light transmitted through the optical element.
Re: claim 8, Niiyama discloses the limitations of claim 3, and Niiyama further discloses that the polarization control layer 16 is a thin film including a nematic liquid crystal (para. 100 discloses cholesteric, which is a chiral nematic material).
Re: claims 9 and 10, Niiyama discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3, respectively. Niiyama does not explicitly disclose that the liquid crystal layer has a thickness of 2 to 5 μm. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the liquid crystal layer have a thickness of 2 to 5 μm for the purpose of generating the optimal amount of anisotropy to achieve the transmission of light having a predetermined wavelength.
Re: claims 11 and 12, Niiyama discloses the limitations of claims 1 and 3 respectively. Niiyama does not explicitly disclose that the polarization control layer has a thickness which is equal to the liquid crystal layer or a thickness which is less than a thickness of the liquid crystal layer. However, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the polarization control layer have a thickness which is equal to the liquid crystal layer or a thickness which is less than a thickness of the liquid crystal layer for the purpose of generating the optimal amount of anisotropy to achieve the transmission of light having a predetermined wavelength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA MEDICH whose telephone number is (313)446-4819. The examiner can normally be reached M-T & Th-F 10:00 AM - 7:00 PM ET.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/ANGELA M. MEDICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights