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
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/2/2025, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to the claim 1 and the cancellation of claim 14. Claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-11 remain pending in the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) filed 12/2/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection set forth below.
Applicant’s reliance on Table 1 to provide experimental results is noted; however, it is unclear if that argument is related to unexpected results. Here, the data provided is noted but the examiner notes that the data is narrowly tailored to a very limited number of examples that are narrowly tailored and the proffered evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims as drafted (which requires any number of materials that are not required by the instant claims i.e. claims are generic to the anisotropic layer but the examples are very specific composition.
As the applicant’s have not offered any secondary considerations to rebut the above analysis and merely maintains that the prior art discloses a range that is not embodied by the prior art, the examiner maintains the prima facie case of obviousness as been set forth and the applicants have failed to provide any factual evidence that the ranges as claimed provide any more than predictable results fully in line with the disclosure of Murata. Here, the secondary consideration could encompass a factual showing that the range of 100 to 160C provides unpredictable benefits associated with that range and better heat controllability or some other unpredictable/unexpected result from using the range as claimed. Murata by disclosing preference to a temperature outside the range, also necessary discloses that temperatures inside the range have predictable results.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the less than 1% retardation change is noted; however, the prior art discloses less than 5% retardation change (see rejection that follows) and such overlaps the range as claimed and thus makes obvious such. Here, the data does not support secondary consideration or unexpected results for the entire breadth of the claim as drafted since the evidence is to a small number of examples and the claims are open to any number of process conditions, composition and variables that are not supported by the narrowly supplied evidence.
All other arguments are either previously addressed in the prior office action, which is incorporated herein by reference, or are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed in the rejection that follows and thus deemed moot.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20180348417 by Shiraiwa et al. with US Patent Application Publication 20150277007 by Matsuyama taken with US Patent Application Publication 20210103083 by Murata or JP 2008179702, hereinafter JP 702 and taken collectively with WO 2018012579, hereinafter WO 579 and JP 2005206579, hereinafter JP 579.
Shiraiwa discloses a method for making a optically anisotropic film (abstract, Example 1) comprising forming an overcoat layer on one side of an a optically anisotropic layer, wherein the overcoating includes a photoreactive compound having three or more meth(acryl) groups (see 00114 including tetraacrylate, triacyrlate). Shiraiwa discloses including tetraacrylate, triacyrlate (00114). Shiraiwa discloses solvent and curing the liquid crystal compound as claimed (0097-00100). Shiraiwa discloses a step of forming a optically anisotropic layer by applying a composition on a base layer and then curing the composition by UV irradiation (Example 1, 0193). Shiraiwa discloses thereafter forming an overcoat layer by applying an overcoating layer on one side of the optically anisotropic layer and then curing the overcoat by irradiation with UV (Example 1, 0196).
Shiraiwa discloses the R(450)/R(550), see 102-104; however, fail to disclose the anisotropic layer satisfies the claimed equation and R(650)/R(550) as claimed. However, Matsuyama discloses including an a optically anisotropic that has a R(450)/R(550), similar to that of Shiraiwa (compare 0102 to 0255) and discloses an optically anisotropic layer that meets the claimed equation (see 0255) and the claimed valued (see 0255-0256), specifically disclosing R(450)/R(550) as being 0.7-0.9 and R(650)/R(550)as being 1.00-1.30, each of which overlaps and makes obvious the instant claimed values. Therefore using such a an optically anisotropic layer would have been obvious as predictable in the process of Shiraiwa because Matsuyama explicitly discloses the layer that satisfies the claimed equation is a known and suitable optically anisotropic layer.
As for forming the layer by applying an overcoat composition on one side of the optically anisotropic layer and curing the layer and the aging after curing, the Examiner cites here Murata, which discloses known temperatures for heating the alignment and retardation layers after application (0004). Murata discloses applying the layer, drying the layer, fixing the layer by curing, and thereafter aging the layer by heating to a temperature (0007, 0055-0065). Murata discloses the benefits of such include post curing aging includes no change in display properties in any environment, including outdoors, etc. where liquid crystal displays may be found (0004). Therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the aging process as taught by Murata to provide control over the display properties and reduce the variation due to heat.
As for the temperature range as claimed. A full review of Murata illustrates that the temperature of the heating is a result effective variable, directly having an effect on the controllability and while Murata discloses that preference is for temperatures of 180C or above or that a temperature below 180C “may fail in sufficiently improving the retardation controllability”, these disclosures also notes that temperature below 180C may not fail in sufficiently improving the properties. Here, the disclosure of preferences does not teach away from the broad disclosure that the temperature has a direct result and determination of the optimum temperature through routine experimentation would have been obvious as predictable.
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Alternatively, JP 2008179702, which also discloses a anisotropic film and discloses that providing an overcoat to the optical film to provide excellent heat resistance (abstract) and discloses overcoating (including acrylate materials, See 2.1, composition for overcoat) and discloses depositing the overcoat layer, photocuring and after curing subjecting the overcoat film to a heat treatment (see 2-2-2-3 Other steps), wherein the heat treatment overlaps the range as claimed (see e.g. 150C, 120C). JP 702 discloses forming the anisotropic layer Therefore, in the alternative to Murata, JP 702 discloses overcoating, photocuring and thereafter drying at a temperature within the range as claimed to provide optical element excellent heat resistance, processing resistance and durability. Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Shiraiwa with Matsuyama to deposit the overcoat as taught by JP 702, photocuring and thereafter subject the overcoat to the heat treatment of e.g. 150C or 120C to reap the benefits of providing provide optical element excellent heat resistance, processing resistance and durability.
As for the time, the time of heating will be recognized by one of ordinary skill the art as being a result effective variable, directly affecting the heat treatment, i.e. too short and no benefits of the heat treatment exists and too long and there are no added benefits or the time results in process inefficiency. As such, taking the level of one ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to have determined the optimum time of heating through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of the heat treatment while considering process efficiency and costs. Here, JP 702 additionally discloses the heating to assist in solvent removal and thus determining the time to remove the solvent would have been obvious through routine experimentation to provide sufficient time to remove the solvent but prevent process inefficiency.
As noted above, Shiraiwa et al. compound having three or more meth(acryl) groups (see 00114 including tetraacrylate, triacyrlate) and discloses polyfunctional polymerizable monomers; however, fails to discloses a compound that meets the Formula 1. However JP 579, also in the art polymerizable optically anisotropic film (background) and discloses including a polyfunctional acrylate to increase the film forming ability and discloses such include triacrylate and diacrylates, including Tripropylene glycol diacrylate and trimethylolpropane triacrylate and alternatively pentaerythritol triacrylate and therefore taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Shiraiwa et al. with Matsuyama and Murata OR JP 702 to use the known polyfunctional acrylate as suggested by JP 579, pentaerythritol triacrylate, which meets the claim Formula 1, as Shiraiwa discloses a optically anisotropic layer with an inclusion of polyfunctional acrylates, such as tripropylene glycol diacrylate or trimethylolpropane triacrylate, and JP 579 discloses that pentaerythritol triacrylate is a known alternative for polyfunctional acrylate inclusion into a optically anisotropic layer.
Shiraiwa et al. with Matsuyama and Murata OR JP 702 fails to disclose the claimed retardation change rate and calculation; however, WO 549 discloses an optically anisotropic layer and discloses determination of the variation rate of retardation by finding the change with respect to an initial phase and a value after leaving the optically anisotropic film at 85° C. for 500 hours (page 194, section Orientation evaluation) and such a change rate less than 5%. Therefore, taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to have provided a retardation change rate as claimed using the valuation as claimed as the prior art discloses that such a change rate is known and suitable in the prior art and one would desire to achieve such a change rate.
Claim 2: Matsuyama discloses the optically anisotropic layer has an in-plane retardation value for light having a wavelength of 550 nm in a range of 100 nm to 180 nm (0255).
Claim 6: Shiraiwa discloses overcoat with a thickness that overlaps the claimed range (0123) and thus makes obvious such.
Claim 8: Shiraiwa discloses no adhesive force to the anisotropic layer so that transferring doesn’t occur (0108).
Claim 10: Shiraiwa discloses the plate with alignment layer prior optically anisotropic layer (0150).
Claim 11: Shiraiwa discloses the organic solvent with the photoreactive compound (0119-120).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraiwa et al. with Matsuyama and Murata OR JP 702 and JP 572 with US Patent Application 20140327863 by Yanai
Shiraiwa et al. with Matsuyama and Murata OR JP 702 and JP 572 fails to disclose the alignment layer as an overcoat on the liquid crystal layer. However Yanai also discloses a liquid crystal optical film an discloses including various alignment layers, both before the liquid crystal film and overcoating the liquid crystal film (Figure 1, 2 and accompanying text) and discloses using such multiple alignment layers to provide improved image quality (0003) and therefore taking the references collectively it would have been obvious to modify Shiraiwa to provide an overcoat alignment layer as such is reasonably taught by Yanai as known and suitable technique for providing superior image quality.
Yanai discloses the overcoat alignment layer has an in-plane retardation value for light having a wavelength of 550 nm in a range of 0 nm to 3 nm (see Table 3, 0051) and therefore providing such would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the benefits as outlined by Yanai, i.e. better image quality.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached on 571-272-5166. 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718