Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim 1-4, is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Carls et al (US 20140326398) in view of Ouderkirk et al (US 20180088348)
Regarding Claim 1,
Carls et al discloses (Fig. 1 and Fig. 4) an optical stack comprising a polymeric multilayer optical film comprising a first major surface and an opposing second major surface, the first major surface of the polymeric multilayer optical film disposed on a temporary substrate with a wetting agent therebetween, the second major surface remaining exposed [0004][0011].
Carls et al does not disclose wherein the polymeric multilayer optical film has a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm.
Ouderkirk et al discloses wherein the polymeric multilayer optical film has a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm [0005-0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Carls et al to include Ouderkirk et al’s polymeric multilayer optical film has a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm [0005-0006] motivated by the desire to provide the flatness required to reflect imaged light with high effective resolution.
Regarding Claim 2,
In addition to Carls et al and Ouderkirk, Carls et al discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the wetting agent is a volatile liquid [0030].
Regarding Claim 3,
In addition to Carls et al and Ouderkirk, Carls et al discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the polymeric optical film comprises a reflective polarizer configured to substantially reflect substantially normally incident light for at least a first polarization state [0013].
Regarding Claim 4,
In addition to Carls et al and Ouderkirk, Ouderkirk discloses wherein the reflective polarizer is configured to reflect an incident image light having the first polarization state with the reflected image light having an effective pixel resolution of less than 12 microns [0005-0006].
Claim 5,6 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jonza et al (US 5882774) in view of Ouderkirk et al (US 20180088348)
Regarding Claim 1,
Jonza et al discloses (Figures 1a-1b) a polymeric multilayer optical film (Column 3) having a plurality of polymeric layers numbering at least 50 in total (Column 2, Fig. 5-8, also see Claim 16), each of the polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (column 2), the optical film configured to substantially reflect substantially normally incident light for at least a first polarization state, wherein at least one layer of the plurality of polymeric layers is birefringent.
Jonza et al does not disclose wherein the polymeric multilayer optical film has a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm.
Ouderkirk et al discloses wherein the polymeric multilayer optical film has a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm [0005-0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jonza et al’s to include Ouderkirk et al’s polymeric multilayer optical film has a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm [0005-0006] motivated by the desire to provide the flatness required to reflect imaged light with high effective resolution.
Regarding Claim 6,
In addition to Jonza et al and Ouderkirk, Ouderkirk discloses being configured to reflect an incident image light having the first polarization state with the reflected image light having an effective pixel resolution of less than 12 microns [0005-0006].
Claim 7-9 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jonza et al (US 5882774) and in view of Ouderkirk et al (US 20180088348) and in view of Carls et al (US 20140326398).
Regarding Claim 7,
Jonza et al and Ouderkirk et al discloses everything as disclosed above.
Jonza et al and Ouderkirk et al do not disclose further comprising a first major surface and an opposing second major surface, wherein the first major surface of the polymeric multilayer optical film is releasably attached to a temporary substrate, and the second major surface remains exposed.
Carls et al discloses a first major surface and an opposing second major surface, wherein the first major surface of the polymeric multilayer optical film is releasably attached to a temporary substrate, and the second major surface remains exposed [0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Jonza et al and Ouderkirk et al to include Carls et al’s first major surface and an opposing second major surface, wherein the first major surface of the polymeric multilayer optical film is releasably attached to a temporary substrate, and the second major surface remains exposed [0004] motivated by the desire to conform and flatten the multilayer optical film before attachment to a permanent optical substrate.
Regarding Claim 8,
In addition to Jonza et al, Ouderkirk et al, and Carls et al, Ouderkirk discloses an optically transparent substrate comprising opposing non-parallel major surfaces making an angle less than about 20 degrees therebetween; and the polymeric multilayer optical film of claim 7; wherein the second major surface of the polymeric multilayer optical film is permanently attached to one of the major surfaces of the optically transparent substrate [0012-0013].
Regarding Claim 9,
In addition to Jonza et al, Ouderkirk et al, and Carls et al, Carls et al discloses (Fig. 4) wherein the temporary substrate has been removed [0004] and wherein the polymeric multilayer optical film reflective polarizer retains a surface roughness Ra of less than 45 nm or a surface roughness Rq of less than 80 nm (taught by Ouderkirk [0005-0006]).
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 M-F.
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
