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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 September 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 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.
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 of this title, 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 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2013/0301129 A1 (“In”) as evidenced by U.S. 2021/0359275 A1.
Considering claims 1 and 2, In discloses an organic light emitting display device 300 having the following sequence of layers: light emitting panel 310, a second phase retardation layer 328 being a quarter-wave plate, a first phase retardation layer 326 being a half-wave plate, a polarizer 324 that linearly polarizes light passing therethrough, and a passivation layer 322 formed of TAC (triacetyl cellulose), wherein layers 328, 326, and 324 are respectively the same as layers 130, 120, and 110 described earlier in the reference. (In ¶¶ 0090-0094, referencing to ¶¶ 0061-0065; and Fig. 6, reproduced infra). In is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (phase retardation films used for displays).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
396
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While In does not state whether TAC is optically isotropic, substantially similar materials necessarily should have substantially similar properties, and in the instant case, as TAC is the material used in both In and the Instant Application, it naturally follows that the same material has the same characteristic (of being optically isotropic). Furthermore, it is noted that TAC is well-known to be an isotropic material. (See, e.g. U.S. 2020/0012016 A1 and U.S. 2021/0199870 A1). It is abundantly clear from Fig. 6 of In that layer 322 constitutes the outermost surface of the display device. In thus anticipates or alternatively renders obvious claims 1 and 2, as In discloses all materials recited in the claims, with the sole exception being a property that is inherent to TAC.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over U.S. 2019/0162889 A1 (“Delbaere”) in view of In.
Considering claims 1-3, Delbaere discloses an optical structure 6 comprising the following layers of material: layer 21 of a support; and layers 23, 26, 27, and 28, each respectively made of a photo-orientable polymerizable liquid crystal (PLCPO) material. (Delbaere ¶¶ 0012-0016 and ¶¶ 0100-0109). Delbaere is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (phase retardation films used for displays).
Delbaere discloses that support layer 21 may be part of an OLED display. (Id. ¶¶ 0055 and 0112). It is noted that an OLED display necessarily has a display panel. In its broader disclosure, Delbaere discloses that the combination of one PLCPO layer and another layer (which does not necessarily need to contain photo-orientable material) can serve as respective quarter wave and half wave retarding plates. (Id. ¶¶ 0100-0104). Furthermore, Delbaere discloses that the inclusion of a dichroic dye in a layer without photo-orientable material makes such a layer a linear polarizer. (Id. ¶ 0102). In a particularly preferred embodiment, Delbaere draws upon these broader disclosures and discloses a preferred triple-layered laminate structure expressly stated to be capable as operating as an antireflection structure for an OLED display, wherein two contiguous layers are made of respective PLCPO materials such that they exhibit respective birefringence and act as retarder layers, while the third layer (either the innermost or outermost) comprises LCP and dichroic dye and serves as a linear polarizer. (Id. ¶ 0109).
Given that there are only two possible locations for the linear polarizer layer relative to the contiguous bilayer of PLCPO materials acting as retarder, the arrangement of PLCPOlower/ PLCPOupper/ LCP linear polarizer is considered to be disclosed with sufficient specificity. Were this to be contended (which is not conceded), then this arrangement is obvious in view of the express disclosures of the reference.
Delbaere differs from the claimed invention, as it is silent re: the provision of a protective layer. However, the provision of an optically isotropic protective film over a sequence of λ/4 retardation layer, λ/2 retardation layer, and linear polarizer is known in the art, as discussed with regards to In at ¶¶ 5 and 6 of the present Office Action above. It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have placed such an optically isotropic protective film over the LCP linear polarizer of Delbaere, as doing so imparts protection to layers located underneath the protective film. Delbaere in view of In renders obvious claims 1-3.
Considering claim 4, each of the lower two layers in the preferred embodiment of Delbaere discussed above contains respective PLCPO material, wherein alignment of the respective layers is implemented by a respective aligning light, in particular one with wavelength less than 420 nm (viz. UV light). (Delbaere ¶¶ 0010-0016 and ¶¶ 0027-0028). It is further noted that in specific examples, both the wavelength used (270-320 nm) and energy delivered (50-200 mJ/cm2) are substantially similar to the conditions disclosed in the Instant Application. (Id. ¶¶ 0138-0196). As such, claim 4 is considered to be obvious.
Response to Arguments
In view of the cancellation of claims 5-7 and amendments to claim 4, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 4-7 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendment to claim 1, all previously instated prior art rejections have been withdrawn. New lines of rejection have been instated above to address the newly-added limitation introduced by the amendment.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached on (571)270-1547. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781