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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BREGULLA et al. (WO 2022078942 A1 hereinafter refer as “BREGULLA”) also published as (US 2023/0367149).
Regarding claim 1. BREGULLA discloses a two-dimensionally extensive optical element (1, see Fig. 1a, Abstract, Para. 0113) comprising a first large surface at which light enters into the optical element (1) and a second large surface at which light exits from the optical element (1, see Fig. 1a), first regions (B1/E1, see Figs. 1a and 26, Para. 0150) which are at least made up of a transparent material with a first refractive index (N1, see Fig. 1a, Para. 0113), and second regions (B2/E2, see Figs. 1a and 26, Para. 0113 and 0150), which are made up of at least 50% of an opaque material with a second refractive index (N2) and at most 50% of a reflective (see Para. 0123, 0151, 0156) or white-scattering material (see Para. 0035), wherein the first regions (B1) and second regions (B2) alternate over the surface of the optical element (1) in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional sequence (see Figs. 3a, Para. 0113, 0121), wherein the first refractive index (N1, e.g., 1.5/1.6, see Fig. 12, Para. 0140) is higher than the second refractive index (N2, e.g., 1.49/1.59, see Fig. 12, Para. 0063, 0113, 0140) within the entire wavelength range visible to the human eye, and wherein, in the second regions (B2), the opaque material is arranged predominantly in direction of the second large surface of the optical element (1), so that light impinging at the first large surface of the optical element (1) is incident into the optical element (1) at least partially through light entry surfaces of the first regions (B1) or impinges on either reflective or white- scattering second regions (B2), where, depending on an incident angle of the light, the polarization of the light and/or the ratio of the first refractive index (N1) to the second refractive index (N2), the light is propagated in an unimpeded manner or totally internally reflected inside of a first region (B1, see Fig. 1a) and is thereafter coupled out again at a light exit surface of the corresponding first region (B1), or completely or partially refracted by the first region (B1) into an adjacent second region (B2), where it is absorbed owing to the opaque material of the second regions (B2) or is reflected or scattered owing to the reflective or white-scattering material of the second regions (B2), the light exiting from the optical element (1) at the second large surface thereof is limited with respect to its propagation directions compared with the light impinging on the optical element (1) at the first large surface, and wherein, further, the light impinging on the optical element (1) at the first large surface at the second regions (B2) is at least partially reflected or scattered.
However, BREGULLA is silent with respect to specific range of a reflective or white-scattering material to be between 5% and at most 50%; the first regions (B1) and the second regions (B2) are parabolically shaped, at least partially parabolically shaped or step shaped when viewed in section direction perpendicular to the second large surface of the optical element (1).
Regarding the specific range of a reflective or a white-scattering material to be between 5% and at most 50%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BREGULLA by choosing the optimum range of absorbent particles in the opaque material, 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 ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
BREGULLA further discloses an alternative embodiment including a first region (B1) and second region (B2), in which the propagation directions of the light exiting from the optical element (1) are selectively influenced. specifically the focusing of light taking place over the surface is sharper (see Fig. 6a) or weaker (see Fig. 6b) depending on the shape of the first regions and the second regions (see Para. 0133).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical element of BREGULLA such that the first regions (B1) and the second regions (B2) are parabolically shaped; at least partially parabolically shaped or step shaped in order to control the propagation directions of the exiting light thereby enhance the desired light reflection or focusing characteristics, as suggested by BREGULLA’s alternative embodiments, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 2. BREGULLA further discloses that the opaque material comprises a transparent material with the second refractive index (N2) which is mixed with absorbent particles (e.g., opaque material M3, see Figs. 27a-27c, Para. 0156) as a result of which an opaque effect is brought about as a whole.
Regarding claim 3. BREGULLA further discloses the opaque material comprises a varnish or polymer which is mixed with graphite particles having a size of less than 500 nm, with nanoparticles of carbon black having a size of less than 200 nm, with iron (II, Ill) oxide particles, with MnFe2O4 particles, and with dyes or with dye mixtures as absorbent particles (see Para. 0065, Claim 17).
Regarding claim 4. BREGULLA further discloses the reflective or white-scattering material comprises a transparent material which is mixed with reflective particle or white-scattering particles, or is mixed with reflective particles and white-scattering particles so that a reflective or white- scattering effect is brought about as a whole (see Para. 0151).
Regarding claim 5. BREGULLA further discloses a difference in refractive index between the first refractive index (N1, e.g., 1.5/1.6, see Fig. 12, Para. 0140) and the second refractive index (N2, e.g., 1.49/1.59, see Fig. 12, Para. 0063, 0113, and 0140) is less than 0.2.
Regarding claim 6. BREGULLA further discloses the first regions (B1) and the second regions (B2) are arranged to be distributed in alternating stripes over the surface of the optical element (1) viewed in parallel projection perpendicular to the optical element (1, see Fig. 14).
Regarding claim 7. BREGULLA further discloses the first regions (B1) are arranged so as to be distributed over the surface of the optical element (1) in a point-shaped, circular, oval-shaped, rectangular or hexagonal manner when viewed in parallel projection perpendicular to the optical element (1), and the second regions (B2) are shaped in a complementary manner.
Regarding claim 8. BREGULLA further discloses a method for the production of an optical element (1) according to claim 1 which comprises first regions (B1/E1, see Figs. 1a and 26, Para. 0150) and second regions (B2/E2, see Figs. 1a and 26, Para. 0113 and 0150), wherein the first regions (E1) and the second regions (E2) alternate over the surface of the optical element (1) in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional sequence, comprising the following steps: forming the first regions (E1) with a transparent material with a first refractive index (N1) on a substrate S (see Fig. 15, Para. 0150), wherein intermediate spaces occur in each instance between every two first regions (E1), partially filling the intermediate spaces with an opaque material with a second refractive index (N2) so that these intermediate spaces are filled to at least 50% of their height, as a result of which the second regions (E2) are partially formed, further filling the intermediate spaces with a diffusely or specularly reflective material, as a result of which the second regions (E2) are completed (see Fig. 28).
Regarding claim 9. Regarding the claim limitation “a final step a sealing of the first regions and second regions on a side thereof not facing the substrate by applying a varnish or a cover layer.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify BREGULLA by applying a sealing paints or cover layers in order to effectively protect the first regions (E1) and the second region (E2), since it has been held by the courts that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, or choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art, as it requires only ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this case, applying paints or cover layers would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Regarding claim 10. BREGULLA further discloses an illumination device for a transmissive display screen, comprising a backlight (BLU, see Fig. 20, Para. 0146), and an optical element (1, see Fig. 20) according to claim 1 wherein, owing to an optical effect of the optical element (1), the illumination device transmits light which is limited with respect to its propagation directions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments that “Bregulla only mentions a reflective layer formed at the light entry surface of second regions B2. It does not disclose that the second region as a whole makes up at most 50% of a reflective material, i.e., also inside the second regions and not only at its surface,” Applicant is respectfully advised that, when considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 159 USPQ 342 (CCPA 1968). In this case, Bregulla teaches that the opaque component in the second regions may comprise a paint or polymer as transparent component and, for the opaque component, can be mixed, for example, with graphite particles; the opaque material can also contain dyes or mixtures of dyes; wherein the particles are preferably uniformly distributed in the opaque material and the mass percentage of opaque material is generally no more than 50% (see Para. 0065, 0067, and 0151). In view of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that the second region is comprises both types of materials (transparent and opaque materials throughout regions, rather than merely having a reflective layer at the surface. Accordingly, Bregulla reasonably teaches or at least suggests that the second regions comprise both material types, with opaque material constating no more than 50% by mass.
In response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (e.g., “the Examiner is relying on the disclosure of the present application in hindsight to find the present claims obvious”), Applicant is respectfully advised that any judgment regarding obviousness is, to some extent, necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. However, such a reconstruction is proper so long as it relies only on knowledge that was within the level of ordinary skill at the art at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, the Examiner’s conclusion is based solely on the teachings of the applied prior art and the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, not on Applicant’s disclosure. Specifically, Bregulla teaches multiple alternative embodiments in which the shapes and configurations of the first region B1 and second region B2 are varied to selectively influence the propagation directions of the light exiting from the optical element (1, see Figs. 6a and 6b, Para. 0133) in order to provide a desired light output. The Examiner’s conclusion that it would have been obvious to employ one of Bregulla’s disclosed alternative configurations is therefore based on the express teachings of the reference and the ordinary creativity of a person having ordinary skill in the art, rather than on impermissible hindsight derived from Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tsion Tumebo whose telephone number is 571-270-1668. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am to 4:00 pm, Monday thru Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached on (571)272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TSION TUMEBO/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights