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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-15 and 19-20 are currently under examination on the merits.
Any rejections and/or objections made in the previous office action and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (US 2021/0109269, of record, ‘269 hereafter) in view of Mun et al (US 2017/0309867, ‘867 hereafter) and Nao (WO2018074524, ‘524 hereafter).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-9, 14 and 19-20, ‘269 discloses an organic electroluminescent display device comprising a circularly polarizing plate having a polarizer and an optically anisotropic layer (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, layers 21 and 25, [0018], [0030], [0049] ); an organic electroluminescent display element having a pair of electrodes and an organic light emitting layer sandwiched therebetween (Fig. 2, layer 14-16, [0047]-[0048]); and a silicon nitride layer is included between the circularly polarizing plate and the organic electroluminescent display element (Fig. 2, layer 17, [0048]), which is one of the low moisture permeability substrates attached to the circularly polarizing plate inherently having a moisture permeability of 1 g/m2 day or less; wherein the polarizer is a polarizer having a dichroic organic coloring agent with thickness less than 5 microns (Example 1, [0064]-0066], polarizing plate + retardation layer is 5 microns, thus the thickness of polarizing plate must be less than 5 microns), and the optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed of a composition containing a polymerizable liquid crystal compound having a partial structure reading upon instantly claimed Formula (II) as in claims 5 and 19, and exhibiting reverse wavelength dispersibility satisfying present claims 6 and 20 ([0030], [0056]-[0061]). The optically anisotropic layer is a λ/4 positive A plate ([0084], rubbing azimuth is 0 degree, renders liquid crystal aligned in one of the plane direction), and the angle formed by slow axis of the optically anisotropic layer and absorption axis can be around 45° ([0089]). ‘269 does not disclose that the organic electroluminescent display device also include another low moisture permeability substrate being a glass substrate disposed on the other side away from silicon nitride layer (to render the circularly polarizing plate disposed between two low moisture permeability substrates), however, in the same filed of endeavor, ‘524 discloses an organic electroluminescent display device comprising a circularly polarizing plate and an organic electroluminescent display element, wherein the circularly polarizing plate is disposed between two low moisture permeability substrates, one can be an silicon nitride layer ([0073]-[0078], [0082], Fig. 11, sealing layer 33) and the other can be a glass substrate ([0078], Fig. 11, layer 42) to render the circularly polarizing plate being protected by these low moisture permeability substrates. In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motived to use glass substate as taught by ‘524, to modify the organic electro-luminescent display device of ‘269, in order to render the device having better moisture protection, because the known glass substrate would predictably result in providing low moisture permeability (See MPEP 2143 (D)). ‘269 does not disclose that the polarizing plate being attached to an organic EL display element by an adhesive layer which has moisture permeability and thickness as presently claimed. However, in the same filed of endeavor, ‘867 discloses a display device comprising display element including organic EL being attached to an polarizing plate or a widow film by an adhesive layer (Fig. 1, [0024]-[0041], adhesive layer 92 or/and 94, [0088]-[0099]) to improve impact resistance, life span and reliability for display element ([0028], [0030]); wherein the moisture permeability (vapor transmission rate) is higher than 100 g/m2 24 Hours ([0030], layer 92 see Examples, Tables 1 and 2) and thickness in a preferred range of 20 to 1000 microns ([0041]). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use an adhesive as taught by ‘867, to modify the display device as taught by ‘269, in order to render a display device having better impact resistance and life span.
Regarding claim 11, modified ‘269 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but modified ‘269 does not expressly disclose that the polarizer has a luminosity corrected transmittance as recited in the present claimed 11, however, since prior art ‘269 discloses a polarizer comprising an organic dichroic dye being substantially identical to the polarizer used in the present application, it is reasonable to expect that the polarizer of ‘269 would have possessed the transmittance as presently claimed, in absence of an objective showing to the contrary.
Regarding claim 15, modified ‘269 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but the cited references do not set for the thickness of the glass substrate is 100 microns or less, however, it is known in the art the moisture permeability of a glass substrate depends on its thickness, thus the thickness of the glass substrate is a result effective variable in terms of moisture permeability. Case law holds that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In view of this, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the glass within the scope of the present claims so as to produce desired moisture permeability (See MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al (US 2021/0109269, of record, ‘269 hereafter) in view of Mun et al (US2017/ 0309867, ‘867 hereafter) and Nao (WO2018074524, ‘524 hereafter), as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hatanaka (US 2017/0269271, ‘271 hereafter).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, modified ‘269 teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not disclose that there is a polarizer protective film being provided between polarizer and optically anisotropic layer. However, it is well-known in the art that a protective film can be used to protect both polarizer and optically anisotropic layer, as evidenced by '271, wherein an elliptically polarizing plate comprising a polarizer layer and a retardation layer having reverse wavelength dispersibility, which is used to reduce reflected colors and improve display performance ([0008]-[0013]); and wherein a polyolefin-based film including norbornene-based film, which inherently has an equilibrium moisture content satisfying present claim 12, can be used as a protective film for polarizer film and optically anisotropic layer ([0081]-[0082], [0111], [0173], the protective layer is located between polarizer and anisotropic layer after these two laminated together by an adhesive). In light of these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a protective layer to protect polarizer and/or anisotropic layer, to render an elliptically polarizing plate having desired mechanical properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/02/2026 and 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIYUN ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7934. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Arron Austin can be reached on 571-272-8935. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/RUIYUN ZHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782