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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Claim 1 recites “A film assembly comprising the following layers:
an optical display …..”.
An optical display is a device or system that uses light, lenses, and mirrors to create, shape, and present visual images
Claim is unclear how “A multiple layers film assembly including an optical display device ….:
Therefore, claim boundary is indefinite.
Claims 2 – 20 have same issue because of claim dependency.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the reflective layer is preferentially disposed on the light-absorbing regions to reduce absorption of incident light by the light-absorbing regions”.
Preferentially means doing something in a way that gives an advantage, priority, or special choice to one person, group, or thing over others.
Claim does not clearly define “the reflective layer is disposed on the light-absorbing regions” or not.
The term “preferentially” has different choices.
Therefore, “the reflective layer is disposed on the light-absorbing regions” or “the reflective layer is not disposed on the light-absorbing regions”.
Therefore, claim boundary is indefinite.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 - 12, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 9740018 B1, Filed: 10/28/2016) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200365650 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
382
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ouderkirk discloses A film assembly comprising the following layers:
an optical display configured to form an image; (c1:19 -35, Light control film (LCF), also known as light collimating film, is an optical film configured to regulate the transmission of light. LCFs include a light transmissive film having a plurality of parallel grooves formed of a light-absorbing material. LCFs can be placed proximate a display surface, image surface, or other surface to be viewed. At normal incidence, (i.e. 0 degree viewing angle) where a viewer is looking at an image through the LCF in a direction that is perpendicular to the film surface, the image is viewable. As the viewing angle increases, the amount of light transmitted through the LCF decreases until a viewing cutoff angle is reached where substantially all (greater than about 95%) the light is blocked by the light-absorbing material and the image is no longer viewable. )
a louver layer (Fig. 13, 1302) extending across the optical display and comprising a plurality of light- transmitting regions and light-absorbing regions arranged transversely according to an alternating two-dimensional pattern; (c17:40-67, Referring now to FIG. 13, an optical article 1300 includes a LCF 1302 with light transmissive regions 1330 and light absorptive regions 1340. The light absorptive regions 1340 are trapezoidal structures with a wide base 1345 at a light input surface 1310 of the LFC 1302 and tapering to a narrower top surface 1355 proximal a light output surface 1320.) and
a reflective layer (Fig. 13, 13935 c17:44 - 50) extending across the louver layer such that the louver layer is disposed between the optical display and the reflective layer, (c17:65-c18:5)
Ouderkirk does not disclose wherein the reflective layer is preferentially disposed on the light-absorbing regions to reduce absorption of incident light by the light-absorbing regions.
Pei discloses wherein the reflective layer (Fig. 1, reflective layer 130) is preferentially disposed on the light-absorbing regions (Fig. 1, [0091] the first spacer layer 440 formed by the light-absorbing photoresist material faces the color region [0018] the first spacer layer includes a light-absorbing photoresist material.) to reduce absorption of incident light by the light-absorbing regions. ([0062] - [0065])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflective layer by Pei into device of Ouderkirk. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light. (Pei: [0065])
Regarding claim 2, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the reflective layer is selectively disposed on the light-absorbing regions and is not disposed on the light-transmitting regions. (Pei [0062] - [0065])
Regarding claim 3, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the reflective layer is a broadband reflective layer. (Ouderkirk: c17: 53 -64: from about 1200nm to greater than about 1600nm”).
Regarding claim 5, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the reflective layer selectively reflects light outside of the visible light spectrum. (Ouderkirk: c17: 53 -64: from about 1200nm to greater than about 1600nm”).
Regarding claim 8, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the light-absorbing regions are tapered along their thickness dimension when viewed in cross-section. (Ouderkirk Fig. 13 c17:40-67)
Regarding claim 9, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the louver layer has a first major surface (Ouderkirk Fig. 13, 1302 upper surface ) facing toward the reflective layer and a second major surface (Ouderkirk Fig. 13, 1302 lower surface ) facing the optical display and further wherein the light-absorbing regions are widest along the first major surface.
Regarding claim 10, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the louver layer has a first major surface (Ouderkirk Fig. 13, 1302 upper surface ) facing toward the reflective layer and a second major surface (Ouderkirk Fig. 13, 1302 lower surface ) facing the optical display and further wherein the light-absorbing regions are widest along the second major surface.
Regarding claim 11, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the light-absorbing regions have a slant angle of from -50 degrees to +50 degrees relative to a normal vector on the first or second major surface. (Ouderkirk c14:21-23)
Regarding claim 12, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the reflective layer directly contacts the light-absorbing regions of the louver layer. (Ouderkirk Fig. 13 c17:40-67)
Regarding claim 15, Ouderkirk and Pei disclose wherein the reflective layer is a Lambertian reflector. (Ouderkirk Fig. 12E, 12F, c15:35-40, c17:7-21)
Claims 4, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 9740018 B1, Filed: 10/28/2016) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200365650 A1) in view of Ouderkirk938 et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20140218938 A1)
Regarding claim 4, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer is a wavelength-specific reflector.
Ouderkirk938 discloses wherein the reflective layer is a wavelength-specific reflector. ([0056])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflectors by Ouderkirk938 into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light (Ouderkirk938: [0056])
Regarding claim 13, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer is a specular reflector.
Ouderkirk938 discloses wherein the reflective layer is a specular reflector. ([0056])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflectors by Ouderkirk938 into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light (Ouderkirk938: [0056])
Regarding claim 14, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer is a semi-specular reflector.
Ouderkirk938 discloses wherein the reflective layer is a semi-specular reflector. ([0056])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflectors by Ouderkirk938 into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light (Ouderkirk938: [0056])
Regarding claim 16, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer is oriented at an acute angle relative to a major surface of the film assembly.
Ouderkirk938 discloses wherein the reflective layer is oriented at an acute angle relative to a major surface of the film assembly. ([0041] – [0046])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflectors by Ouderkirk938 into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light (Ouderkirk938: [0056])
Regarding claim 17, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer has an exposed surface that is either concave or convex.
Ouderkirk938 discloses wherein the reflective layer has an exposed surface that is either concave or convex. ([0040] – [0047])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflectors by Ouderkirk938 into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light (Ouderkirk938: [0056])
Regarding claim 18, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer extends over from 10 percent to 90 percent of a major surface of the film assembly.
Ouderkirk938 discloses wherein the reflective layer extends over from 10 percent to 90 percent of a major surface of the film assembly. ([0007] [0033] [0041] [0056])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate reflectors by Ouderkirk938 into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reflect light (Ouderkirk938: [0056])
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 9740018 B1, Filed: 10/28/2016) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200365650 A1) in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20210011339 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the optical display comprises a light source; and a liquid crystal panel extending across the light source.
Yang discloses wherein the optical display comprises a light source; ([0034] – [0040]) and
a liquid crystal panel extending across the light source. ([0034] – [0040])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate light source by Yang into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide light source. (Yang: [0034])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 9740018 B1, Filed: 10/28/2016) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200365650 A1) in view of He et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20190148459 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the optical display comprises an organic light-emitting diode array, micro light emitting diode, or mini light emitting diode.
He discloses wherein the optical display comprises an organic light-emitting diode array, micro light emitting diode, or mini light emitting diode. ([0054] – [0060])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate OLED by He into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to save power. (Yang: [0054])
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 9740018 B1, Filed: 10/28/2016) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200365650 A1) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20220128860 A1)
Regarding claim 19, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the reflective layer has a thickness of from 10 nanometers to 1000 nanometers.
Wang discloses wherein the reflective layer has a thickness of from 10 nanometers to 1000 nanometers. ([0106] 100 nanometers)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thickness by Wang into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide different design choice. (Wang: [0106])
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent 9740018 B1, Filed: 10/28/2016) in view of Pei et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20200365650 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 20080213553 A1)
Regarding claim 20, Ouderkirk and Pei do not disclose wherein the louver layer has a thickness of from 30 micrometers to 300 micrometers.
Hwang discloses wherein the louver layer has a thickness of from 30 micrometers to 300 micrometers. ([0033] [0034] – [0040])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate thickness by Hwang into device of Ouderkirk and Pei. The suggestion/motivation would have been to provide different design choice. (Hwang: [0033])
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUN-NAN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5646. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30am - 6pm.
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, Benjamin C Lee can be reached at 571-2722963. 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.
/CHUN-NAN LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2629
