DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 9, line 15, fig.8 should fig.7.
Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references, WO 1995017303A1, submitted in the IDS on 04/10/2025 is not considered since it is wrong and should be WO 95017303A1; therefore, it has been deleted with a line through in the IDS.
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.
Claims 1-4 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11829024B2 in view of Ko US 20180172887.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11829024B2 discloses all the claim limitations, except the first optical film is a reflective polarizer.
Ko discloses an optical stack (3320), in at least figs.2-5 and 12, the first optical film is a reflective polarizer (3322)(see figs.2-5 and para.64-71) for the purpose of forming a reflective polarizer (para.138 and 139).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first optical film is a reflective polarizer as taught by Ko in the optical stack of claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11829024B2 for the purpose of forming a reflective polarizer.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Ko discloses a backlight for providing illumination to a display panel (3310), see at least figs.2-5 and 12, comprising: the optical stack (3320) of claim 1; an optical reflector (3280) disposed adjacent the optical stack and defining an optical cavity therebetween (para.4), the optical reflector reflecting at least 80% of light for each of the first and second polarization states and for each wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range (see fig.12 and para.64); and at least one light source (3290) configured to emit light in the first wavelength range into the optical cavity (see fig.12), and a display comprising a display panel (para.47 and 138) disposed on the backlight (see fig.12) of claim 3 and configured to receive light emitted by the backlight (para.47 and 138) for the purpose of forming an LCD with a backlight (para.138).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a backlight for providing illumination to a display panel, comprising: the optical stack of claim 1; an optical reflector disposed adjacent the optical stack and defining an optical cavity therebetween, the optical reflector reflecting at least 80% of light for each of the first and second polarization states and for each wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range; and at least one light source configured to emit light in the first wavelength range into the optical cavity, and a display comprising a display panel disposed on the backlight of claim 3 and configured to receive light emitted by the backlight as taught by Ko in the backlight and display of claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11829024B2 for the purpose of forming an LCD with a backlight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1-4 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitations of claim 1 are considered to be indefinite. The claim limitations “An optical stack for reflecting and transmitting light in a predetermined wavelength range extending at least from about 400 nm to about 600 nm” appear to contradict the disclosure. For example, Figure 2 discloses a predetermined wavelength range 10 includes a first wavelength range 20’ and a green-wavelength range 30a and a red-wavelength range 30b, so that the predetermined wavelength range should be extending at least from about 400 nm to about 675 nm because the red-wavelength range 30b extending from about 625 nm to about 675 nm. Also, for the claim limitations “for each wavelength in the first wavelength range, the multilayer optical film has a maximum optical transmittance Tmax for light incident at a first incident angle, and an optical transmittance Tmax/2 for light incident at a second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by less than about 50 degrees” appear to contradict the disclosure. For example, fig.8 discloses “for each wavelength in the first wavelength range, the multilayer optical film has a maximum optical transmittance Tmax for light incident at a first incident angle, and an optical transmittance Tmax/2 for light incident at a second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by less than about 50 degrees” and greater than about 39 degrees” because the second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by at least greater than about 39 degrees and cannot be zero degree.
In addition, for the claim limitations “for each wavelength in a wavelength range extending from about 425 nm to about 475 nm, the multilayer optical film has an optical transmittance greater than about 80% for substantially zero incident angle, and an optical transmittance less than about 50% for light incident at less than about 45 degrees” appear to contradict the disclosure. For example, fig.8 discloses “for each wavelength in a wavelength range extending from about 425 nm to about 475 nm, the multilayer optical film has an optical transmittance greater than about 80% for substantially zero incident angle, and an optical transmittance less than about 50% for light incident at less than about 45 degrees” and greater than about 37 degrees” because an optical transmittance less than about 50% for light incident at greater than about 37 degrees and cannot be zero degree. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “An optical stack for reflecting and transmitting light in a predetermined wavelength range extending at least from about 400 nm to about 675 nm, the optical stack comprising a reflective polarizer disposed on a multilayer optical film, such that:
for substantially normally incident light and for each wavelength in a first wavelength range of the predetermined wavelength range, the reflective polarizer reflects at least 80% of light having a first polarization state and transmits at least 80% of light having an orthogonal second polarization state; and
for each of the first and second polarization states:
for each wavelength in the first wavelength range, the multilayer optical film has a maximum optical transmittance Tmax for light incident at a first incident angle, and an optical transmittance Tmax/2 for light incident at a second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by less than about 50 degrees and greater than about 39 degrees; and
for each wavelength in a wavelength range extending from about 425 nm to about 475 nm, the multilayer optical film has an optical transmittance greater than about 80% for substantially zero incident angle, and an optical transmittance less than about 50% for light incident at less than about 45 degrees and greater than about 37 degrees; and
for each wavelength in each of a green wavelength range extending from about 525 nm to about 575 nm and a red wavelength range extending from about 625 nm to about 675 nm, the multilayer optical film reflects at least 90% of light for incident angles from about zero degree to about 70 degrees” - -.
Also, dependent Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims 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 filing a terminal disclaimer to overcome the Double Patenting rejection.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach or disclose, in light of the specification, the claim limitations of claim 1. In addition, Ko US 20180172887 (figs.2-5 and 12) at least fails to disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “for each of the first and second polarization states:
for each wavelength in the first wavelength range, the multilayer optical film has a maximum optical transmittance Tmax for light incident at a first incident angle, and an optical transmittance Tmax/2 for light incident at a second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by less than about 50 degrees and greater than about 39 degrees; and
for each wavelength in a wavelength range extending from about 425 nm to about 475 nm, the multilayer optical film has an optical transmittance greater than about 80% for substantially zero incident angle, and an optical transmittance less than about 50% for light incident at less than about 45 degrees and greater than about 37 degrees; and
for each wavelength in each of a green wavelength range extending from about 525 nm to about 575 nm and a red wavelength range extending from about 625 nm to about 675 nm, the multilayer optical film reflects at least 90% of light for incident angles from about zero degree to about 70 degrees” along with other claim limitations. Claims 2-4 are depended on claim 1 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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 H 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
