DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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.
4. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 USC 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 USC 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
5. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims “each of the columnar structures and all other of the columnar structures having a fixed spacing A therebetween.” However, this suggests that each columnar structure has a fixed spacing between itself every other columnar structure. It is unclear how such an arrangement could exist. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “each pair of neighboring columnar structures
Applicant also claims “columnar structures…are connected by a plurality of virtual lines to form a plurality of hypothetical polygons.” It is unclear what distinction applicant intends to make between “virtual” and “hypothetical” shapes. Further, the language “hypothetical” raises question as to whether the polygons are claimed features of the invention. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret each instance of “hypothetical polygons” throughout claims 1-14 to read “virtual polygons.”
Claims 2-14 inherit the issues of clarity posed by claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, applicant claims “wherein an area of each of the first prismatic shapes is different from an area of each of the second prismatic shapes.” However, a “prismatic” (3D) shape implies volume. Therefore, it is unclear what the “area of…prismatic shapes” is intended to measure. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the “area of…prismatic shapes” to describe an area of each 2D hypothetical polygon formed by drawing virtual lines between columnar structures. For example, an area of a prismatic triangle (Image 1 below, leftmost), would measure an area of the triangle’s face, without considering its height/depth.
6. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 112(d) or 35 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim on which it depends.
Regarding claim 12, applicant claims “wherein the columnar structures comprise different spacings.” However, the applicant claims “each of the columnar structures and all of the columnar structures having a fixed spacing” in claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is not considered to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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.
8. Claims 1-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugi (US 20240290922 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Sugi discloses a light leakage suppression layer, comprising:
a plurality of columnar structures ([0095], “columnar structures 108a”), the columnar structures being separated from each other (Figs. 7, 108a), wherein in a top view of the light leakage suppression layer (Figs. 7), the columnar structures comply with the following arrangement rules:
each of the columnar structures and all other of the columnar structures having a fixed spacing A therebetween ([0095], “pitch p”; Fig. 7, p) are connected by a plurality of virtual lines to form a plurality of hypothetical polygons (Fig. 7, lines representing pitch p may be drawn between columnar structures to form a plurality of polygons; Image 1 below), wherein the virtual lines are of equal length ([0138], “pitch p…is fixed”), the columnar structures are located at corners and/or sides of the hypothetical polygons (Image 1, 108a are located at corners and sides of each polygon), and the hypothetical polygons comprise a plurality of different shapes (Image 1, different shapes are formed by drawing lines between the columnar structures).
PNG
media_image1.png
301
1305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Figure 7 of Sugi reproduced four times, with 4 different polygon shapesformed by drawing lines representing pitch p between columnar structures.
Regarding claim 2, Sugi discloses wherein all of the columnar structures are located at a plurality of corners of the hypothetical polygons (Image 1), and a side length of each of the sides of each of the hypothetical polygons is equal ([0138], “pitch p…is fixed”).
Regarding claim 3, Sugi discloses wherein the hypothetical polygons comprise more than three different shapes (Image 1), and at least two of the shapes are shapes with side lengths of each of the sides being equal ([0138], “pitch p…is fixed”).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Sugi discloses wherein the hypothetical polygons comprise a plurality of pentagons (Figs. 6-7, pentagons may be formed by drawing lines between repeating columnar structures), a plurality of first prismatic shapes (Image 1, prismatic triangles), and a plurality of second prismatic shapes (Image 1, prismatic rhombuses), wherein an area of each of the first prismatic shapes is different from an area of each of the second prismatic shapes (mathematical areas of triangles and rhombuses are defined differently).
Regarding claim 5, Sugi discloses wherein the hypothetical polygons comprise a plurality of hexagons (Image 2 below, or Fig. 9), a plurality of triangles (Image 1), and a plurality of squares (Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
301
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Image 2. Figure 7 of Sugi reproduced, with a hexagonal shape formed
by drawing lines representing pitch p between columnar structures.
Regarding claim 6, Sugi discloses wherein the hypothetical polygons comprise a plurality of pentagons (Figs. 6-7, pentagons may be formed by drawing lines between repeating columnar structures), a plurality of triangles (Image 1), and a plurality of squares (Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 7, Sugi discloses wherein the hypothetical polygons comprise a plurality of pentagrams (Figs. 6-7, pentagrams may be formed by drawing lines between repeating columnar structures), a plurality of first quadrilaterals (Image 1, rhombus), a plurality of second quadrilaterals (Image 1, a rhombus as shown, but one that is 3 columnar structures wide in a horizontal direction instead of 2), a plurality of first heptagons (Figs. 6-7, heptagons may be formed by drawing lines between repeating columnar structures), and a plurality of second heptagons (Figs. 6-7, heptagons of different sizes may be formed by drawing lines between repeating columnar structures), wherein an area of each of the first quadrilaterals is different from an area of each of the second quadrilaterals (Image 1, a rhombus wider than the one shown would have a greater area), and an area of each of the first heptagons is different from an area of each of the second heptagons (Figs. 6-7, heptagons of different sizes will have different areas).
Regarding claim 8, Sugi discloses wherein a sum of a plurality of angles corresponding to a plurality of hypothetical polygons that are close to each other among the hypothetical polygons is 360 degrees (Image 1, rhombus; the sum of any quadrilateral’s interior angles is 360°).
Regarding claim 9, Sugi discloses a transparent layer ([0091], 107), located between the columnar structures (Fig. 6, 107).
Regarding claim 11, Sugi discloses wherein the hypothetical polygons are arranged into an array comprising a plurality of repeating units (Images 1-2, shapes can be repeated).
Regarding claim 12, Sugi discloses wherein the columnar structures comprise different spacings in a first direction ([0139], “the plurality of columnar structures 108 a is arranged such that a pitch px in the X direction is different from a pitch py in the Y direction”).
Regarding claim 13, Sugi discloses a display panel ([0172]-[0174], 3100), comprising: a plurality of light-emitting elements (Fig. 6, 105); and a light leakage suppression layer according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Sugi discloses a transparent substrate ([0091], 107), wherein the transparent substrate is located between the light-emitting elements and the light leakage suppression layer (Fig. 6, 107).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
10. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 USC 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.
11. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi in view of Ogata et al. (US 20120206673 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Sugi fails to disclose wherein the columnar structures comprise light-absorbing materials for absorbing visible light.
However, Ogata teaches a similar optical device having columnar structures (Abstract, 21), and discloses wherein the columnar structures comprise light-absorbing materials for absorbing visible light ([0095], “the adhesive resin 3 used for the columnar sections 21…exhibits optical absorption at a visible light region”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Sugi and Ogata such that the columnar structures comprise light-absorbing materials for absorbing visible light, motivated by controlling light flux ([0095]).
Sugi fails to disclose wherein a height of the each of the columnar structures is 300 microns to 700 microns and a width of the each of the columnar structures is 75 microns to 125 microns.
However, due to the nature of optics/optical engineering, the process of optical design includes manipulation of variables such as index of refraction, lens surface radii, size dimensions of optical components, and other shape concerns, in order to allow an optical system to meet its particular utility. This manipulation would normally be considered routine experimentation since the results are governed by known optics/physics equations and are known to be result-effective (unless the particular range of values meets secondary considerations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the dimensions of the columnar structures such that a height of 300-700 µm and a width of 75-125 µm was satisfied, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim 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). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to change the dimensions of the columnar structures such that the expression was satisfied, motivated by reducing the size of the system.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights