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 .
Legibility of Claims
The claims filed July 2, 2025 appear to be written in a light-color font, which diminishes their legibility and reproducibility. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.52, Sections (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(1)(v), Applicant should use a dark color font, preferably black. Future filings, e.g., claim amendments, written in light-colored font may be refused entry. Applicant’s cooperation in this matter is appreciated.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of July 2, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the previously-cited references fail to disclose the newly-recited: a thickness of the protective film is at least 1mm and 2.5 nm or less (understood to be “1 nm to 2.5 nm”; see rejections based upon 35 USC 112(b) below). Specifically, Applicant argues that primary reference Takada (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2008/0186576 A1) does not disclose the claimed low thickness for the protective film because Takada’s only specific examples of protective film thickness are 15 nm and 30 nm (page 8 of the Remarks of July 2, 2025, citing paragraphs [0180], [0185] of Takada) and secondary reference Nielson’s (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2019/0041564 A1) exemplary protective layer thickness varies from 0.1 nm to 40 nm, even though a specific example thickness is 1 nm (page 9 of the Remarks of July 2, 2025, citing to paragraphs [0027], [0068] of Nielson).
In the previous Office Action of April 3, 2025 (pages 11-12), it was explained that the selection of a small thickness (2.5 nm or less) for the protective film would have been obvious based on the disclosures of the Takada reference, and further obvious when also considering the teachings of the Nielson reference.
Specifically, Takada discloses that the protective layer is optional (i.e., zero nanometer thickness is contemplated), but when the protective layer is provided, the thickness of the protective layer is known to be a result-effective variable (see MPEP § 2144.05, Section III, Subsection C). Takada explains that the selection of protective layer thickness is a trade-off between the competing interests of increased reliability, including humidity resistance, and avoiding changes in polarization properties and reflectance (see paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada). Therefore, because the general conditions regarding the effects of protection layer thickness are disclosed in the prior art, the selection of a small thickness (1 nm to 2.5 nm) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on routine experimentation to discover optimum or workable ranges that effective balance the competing interests (see MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). Nielson provides further support for this conclusion by teaching an actual example of wire grid polarizer protective layer thickness (1 nm) within the claimed range.
Applicant appears to argue against this finding of obviousness by asserting that the claimed range of 1 nm to 2.5 nm has “technical significance” or “critical significance” (pages 8, 10, 11 of the Remarks of July 2, 2025). Specifically, Applicant points to several figures of Applicant’s originally-filed disclosure (FIGS. 5, 6, 9) which graphically illustrate Applicant’s simulated or observed relationship between (i) protective layer thickness and (ii) transmittance and contrast change (pages 6-8 of the Remarks of July 2, 2025).
However, it has been held that to successfully rebut a prima facie case of obviousness of a claimed range, an applicant must show that a particular range is in fact critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range, i.e., showing new and unexpected results which are different in kind and not merely in degree. MPEP § 2144.05, Section III, Subsection A, citing In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). And to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP § 716.02(d), Section II, citing In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
In the present case, Applicant has provided the results of tests both inside and outside the claimed range (see originally-filed FIGS. 6, 9), showing test results for 0 nm [no protective film], 2.5 nm, 5 nm, and 7.5 nm in terms of their effect on transmittance and contrast change. However, such test results merely show a difference in the degree of outcome, rather than a difference in the kind of outcome. Specifically, Applicant’s FIG. 6 shows the expected result of an increased thickness on transmittance, wherein a thicker protective layer will undesirably diminish the transmittance of the polarizer (note the progressively lower lines which correspond to greater thicknesses), i.e., diminished optical properties. Applicant’s FIG. 9 shows the expected result of a reduced thickness on contrast change under high heat [heat resistance test], wherein a thinner protective layer will undesirably increase a contrast change under high heat (note the progressively lower lines which correspond to lower thicknesses), i.e., diminished durability.
With respect to any supposed critical significance of a thickness of 1 nm to 2.5 nm, the Office notes that Applicant’s FIG. 6 fails to show any significant difference between the effects of a thickness of 2.5 nm and the thickness of zero nm [no protective film] or thickness of 5 nm (which are nearest to, but outside of, the range of 1 nm to 2.5 nm). Specifically, FIG. 6 shows a difference of approximately 0% to 3% when comparing the 2.5 nm line to either the zero nm line or the 5 nm line. Applicant’s FIG. 9 fails to show a significant difference between the effects of a thickness of 2.5 nm and the thickness of 5 nm. Specifically, FIG. 9 shows a difference of approximately 5% to 10% when comparing the 2.5 nm line to the 5 nm line.
The Office acknowledges that FIG. 9 does appear to show a large difference between the effects of a thickness of 2.5 nm and a thickness of zero nm [no protective film] (approximately 30% to 45% difference in the graph). However, this difference would be expected by one of ordinary skill in the art because this is a comparison of durability with the presence of a protective film in contrast with the absence of a protective film. In FIG. 9, for all example thicknesses above zero, i.e., where a protective film is present, very similar results are shown, i.e., lines which do not differ significantly from one another.
Applicant appears to further argue a significance to the claimed low thickness in combination with the selection of materials SiO2 and Al2O3 for the dielectric layer and the protective layer, respectively (pages 6, 9 of the Remarks of July 2, 2025). However, Applicant has not explained how the selection of the specific materials SiO2 and Al2O3, either alone or in combination with the required protective layer thickness, results in any new and unexpected effect with respect to the presently-claimed invention.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected based upon the previously-cited references.
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, 5-14, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite the phrase: “a thickness of the protective film is at least 1mm and 2.5 nm or less”. However, this does not appear to be a conventional expression of a mathematical range because 1mm is greater than 2.5 nm (1 mm [1 millimeter] is equal to 1000 nm [1000 nanometers]) and does not appear to be consistent with Applicant’s disclosure and intent based upon the Remarks of July 2, 2025 (see, e.g., page 10). For examination, “1mm” will be treated as “1 nm” [1 nanometer], which appears to be consistent with paragraph [0067] on page 22 of the originally-filed specification.
Claims 5-13, 17 and 18 inherit the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 14.
Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 10 recites: “wherein the dielectric layer formed from the first dielectric material is composed of a material selected from a group consisting of Si oxides, Ti oxides, Zr oxides, Al oxides, Nb oxides and Ta oxides”. However, Claim 1 (from which Claim 10 depends), as amended in Applicant’s response of July 2, 2025, now includes the language “the dielectric layer formed from the first dielectric material is formed from SiO2 [silicon dioxide]”.
Therefore, Claim 10 does not appear to further limit the claim upon which it depends, and/or fails to include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place it in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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, 6, 9-12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada, US 2008/0186576 A1 (cited in the IDS of November 2, 2022 and previously-relied upon) or alternatively, as being unpatentable over Takada in view of Nielson et al., US 2019/0041564 A1, previously cited and relied upon.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood [see above rejection of Claim 1 based upon 35 USC 112(b)], Takada discloses: A polarization plate having a wire grid structure (see, e.g., polarizing plate 10 or 20; FIGS. 1A, 5A of Takada), the polarization plate comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features):
a transparent substrate (substrate transparent to visible light, such as substrate 11 or 21; paragraphs [0084], [0097] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C of Takada);
a plurality of projections which are formed on a first surface of the transparent substrate, extend in a first direction, and are arrayed periodically and separated from each other at a pitch that is shorter than a wavelength of a used light region (convex portions, such as convex portions 14a, extending in one direction [absorption-axis Y direction] parallel with the primary surface of the substrate 11 at a predetermined pitch, which is smaller than a wavelength in a visible light region, and wherein such wire grid configuration may also be layered stacks on substrate 21; paragraphs [0087], [0089] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada); and
an antireflection layer which is formed on a second surface of the transparent substrate on an opposite side from the first surface (front and rear surfaces of the substrate may be coated with antireflection films; paragraphs [0108], [0154] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada);
wherein the plurality of projections each have, in order from a side of the transparent substrate, a reflection layer, a dielectric layer formed from a first dielectric material, and an absorption layer (at an upper surface of substrate 21, the projections may be formed by a reflection layer 22, dielectric layer 23, and inorganic particle layer 25, in this order; paragraphs [0109]-[0112] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada); and
surfaces of the projections and a surface of the antireflection layer are covered with a protective film formed from a second dielectric material (a material, such as SiO2 [silicon dioxide], transparent in a service bandwidth region, may be applied on surfaces of the polarizing element 20 as a protective film; paragraphs [0108], [0154] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada); and
the dielectric layer formed from the first dielectric material is formed from SiO2, and the protective film formed from the second dielectric material is formed from Al2O3 (dielectric layers 23 may be formed from SiO2, and the protective film may be Al2O3; paragraphs [0108], [0121], [0122], [0154] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 8, 9, 10A, 11, 12 of Takada).
Takada discloses nanometer-scale example thicknesses for the protective layer (e.g., 15 nm or 30 nm; see paragraphs [0180], [0185] of Takada), but does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of a lower thickness of the protective film such that: a thickness of the protective film is at least 1mm and 2.5 nm or less [understood to be “1 nm to 2.5 nm”].
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Takada discloses that the protective film is optional, but may be preferred due to an increase in reliability, such as humidity resistance (paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada). However, Takada discloses that there are potential disadvantages to such protective film, such as changes in polarization properties and reflectance, and specifically discloses that the thickness of such protective film will influence such factors (paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the protective film, but select a small film thickness, such as 1 nm to 2.5 nm, in accordance with balancing its beneficial properties of reliability and humidity resistance with the avoidance of its negative properties of altering polarization properties and reflectance, as evidenced by paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada.
Furthermore, Nielson is related to Takada with respect to wire-grid polarizers.
Nielson teaches: wherein a thickness of the protective film is at least 1mm and 2.5 nm or less [understood to be “1 nm to 2.5 nm”] (lower and upper barrier-layers 31, 41 protect surfaces of wire-grid polarizer 30, 40 and may have exemplary thicknesses of 0.1 nm, 0.5 nm, or 1 nm; paragraphs [0027], [0053], [0058], [0059], [0068] of Nielson).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the small protective layer thickness of Nielson for the protective film of Takada because such small thickness of protective layer was in fact known in the art, and was known to be sufficient to protect against oxidation and/or corrosion, as evidenced by paragraphs [0027], [0053], [0055], [0058]-[0061], [0066], [0068] of Nielson.
Regarding Claim 6, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the antireflection layer is an alternating laminate of a high-refractive index film and a low-refractive index film (the antireflection film may be formed of a multilayer film composed of a low refractive-index film and a high refractive-index film; paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada).
Regarding Claim 9, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the transparent substrate is transparent to a wavelength of a used light region, and is composed of a material selected from a group consisting of glass, rock crystal, quartz and sapphire (substrate may be formed of a material, such as glass, sapphire, or quartz; paragraphs [0088], [0146], [0163], [0180], [0185] and FIGS. 1A, 5A of Takada).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood [see above rejection of Claim 10 based on 35 USC 112(d)], Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the dielectric layer formed from the first dielectric material is composed of a material selected from a group consisting of Si oxides, Ti oxides, Zr oxides, Al oxides, Nb oxides and Ta oxides (dielectric layers 23 may be formed from SiO2 [silicon dioxide]; paragraphs [0121], [0122] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 8, 9, 10A, 11, 12 of Takada).
Regarding Claim 11, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the reflection layer is composed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (reflection layer 22 [or 22a] may be formed of Al, Ag, Cu, Mo, Cr, Ti, Ni, W, Fe, Si, Ge, or Te, or a semiconductor material; paragraph [0114] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 8, 9, 10A, 11, 12 of Takada).
Regarding Claim 12, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein the absorption layer is composed of a material that has an absorption action relative to a wavelength of a used light region, and that is selected from a group consisting of metals, alloy materials and semiconductor materials (inorganic particle layer 25 having an optical constant in the absorption-axis Y direction larger than in the transmission-axis X direction, wherein inorganic particle layers 15 or 25 may comprise a metal or semiconductor; paragraphs [0105], [0125] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 8, 9, 10A, 11, 12 of Takada).
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood [see above rejection of Claim 14 based upon 35 USC 112(b)], Takada discloses: A production method for a polarization plate having a wire grid structure, the method comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional steps or features):
a step of forming a reflection layer, a dielectric layer formed from a first dielectric material, and an absorption layer in order on a first surface of a transparent substrate, thus producing a laminate composed of the reflection layer, the dielectric layer and the absorption layer (at an upper surface of substrate 21, the projections may be formed by a reflection layer 22, dielectric layer 23, and inorganic particle layer 25, in this order; paragraphs [0109]-[0112], [0129] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada);
a step of selectively etching the laminate to form a plurality of projections which extend in a first direction and are arrayed periodically and separated from each other at a pitch that is shorter than a wavelength of a used light region (at an upper surface of substrate 21, the projections may be formed by a reflection layer 22, dielectric layer 23, and inorganic particle layer 25, in this order; paragraphs [0087], [0089], [0109]-[0112], [0129] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada);
a step of forming an antireflection layer on a second surface of the transparent substrate on an opposite side from the first surface (front and rear surfaces of the substrate may be coated with antireflection films; paragraphs [0108], [0154] and FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada); and
a step of forming a protective film formed from a second dielectric material on surfaces of the projections and a surface of the antireflection layer (a material, such as SiO2 [silicon dioxide], transparent in a service bandwidth region, may be applied on surfaces of the polarizing element 20 as a protective film; paragraphs [0108], [0154] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6-9, 10A, 10B, 11, 12 of Takada);
the dielectric layer formed from the first dielectric material is formed from SiO2, and the protective film formed from the second dielectric material is formed from Al2O3 (dielectric layers 23 may be formed from SiO2, and the protective film may be Al2O3; paragraphs [0108], [0121], [0122], [0154] and FIGS. 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, 8, 9, 10A, 11, 12 of Takada).
Takada discloses nanometer-scale example thicknesses for the protective layer (e.g., 15 nm or 30 nm; see paragraphs [0180], [0185] of Takada), but does not appear to explicitly disclose a numerical value of a lower thickness of the protective film such that: a thickness of the protective film is at least 1mm and 2.5 nm or less [understood to be “1 nm to 2.5 nm”].
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05, Section II, Subsection A, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456; 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the present case, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art because Takada discloses that the protective film is optional, but may be preferred due to an increase in reliability, such as humidity resistance (paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada). However, Takada discloses that there are potential disadvantages to such protective film, such as changes in polarization properties and reflectance, and specifically discloses that the thickness of such protective film will influence such factors (paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the protective film, but select a small film thickness, such as 1 nm to 2.5 nm, in accordance with balancing its beneficial properties of reliability and humidity resistance with the avoidance of its negative properties of altering polarization properties and reflectance, as evidenced by paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada.
Furthermore, Nielson is related to Takada with respect to wire-grid polarizers.
Nielson teaches: wherein a thickness of the protective film is at least 1mm and 2.5 nm or less [understood to be “1 nm to 2.5 nm”] (lower and upper barrier-layers 31, 41 protect surfaces of wire-grid polarizer 30, 40 and may have exemplary thicknesses of 0.1 nm, 0.5 nm, or 1 nm; paragraphs [0027], [0053], [0058], [0059], [0068] of Nielson).
Thus, it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the small protective layer thickness of Nielson for the protective film of Takada because such small thickness of protective layer was in fact known in the art, and was known to be sufficient to protect against oxidation and/or corrosion, as evidenced by paragraphs [0027], [0053], [0055], [0058]-[0061], [0066], [0068] of Nielson.
Regarding Claim 18, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: An optical apparatus comprising the polarization plate according to Claim 1 (polarizing plate 10 or 20 may be part of a liquid crystal display device; Abstract and paragraph [0017] and FIGS. 1A, 5A of Takada).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) and further in view of Machida et al., US 2020/0119073 A1, previously cited and relied upon.
Regarding Claim 5, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 4 and further discloses that any of several types of vacuum film formation methods (e.g., chemical or physical) may be utilized to form the protective film, including chemical vapor deposition, sputtering, or evaporation (paragraphs [0108], [0154] of Takada).
Takada or Takada-Nielson does not appear to explicitly disclose the chemical deposition method known as atomic layer deposition (ALD), such that: wherein, the protective film formed from the second dielectric material is an ALD film.
Machida is related to Takada or Takada-Nielson with respect to wire grid polarizers having protective layers.
Machida teaches: wherein, the protective film formed from the second dielectric material is an ALD film (protective film for wire grid polarizer may be formed by various CVD or PVD methods such as coating, sputtering, and vacuum evaporation, however, it is more preferred an atomic layer deposition method [ALD method]; paragraph [0109] of Machida).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the ALD method of Machida for the protective film of Takada or Takada-Nielson, because such method enables such film to be formed conformally, yet also thinly [thus providing protection while reducing material costs and bulk size and/or weight of the device], as taught in paragraph [0109] of Machida.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) and further in view of Gafsi et al., US 2017/0123240 A1, previously cited and relied upon.
Regarding Claim 7, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 6 and further recognizes the utility of ion beam sputtering in layer formation (see, e.g., paragraphs [0102], [0103], [0163], [0180], [0196], [0198], [0207]-[0211], [0221] of Takada).
Nonetheless, Takada or Takada-Nielson does not appear to explicitly disclose the method of formation of the anti-reflection layer, such that: wherein the antireflection layer is an ion beam assisted vapor deposition film or an ion beam sputtering film.
Gafsi is related to Takada or Takada-Nielson with respect to formation of anti-reflection films.
Gafsi teaches: wherein the antireflection layer is an ion beam assisted vapor deposition film or an ion beam sputtering film (anti-reflection coating may be applied by physical or chemical vapor deposition methods, including ion-assisted deposition or ion beam sputtering; paragraphs [0044]-[0048] of Gafsi).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the ion beam deposition/sputtering of Gafsi for the anti-reflection layer of Takada or Takada-Nielson, because such methods provide a layer that is dense and smooth [and thus less reflectively scattering of light compared to a rough surface], and can further avoid [or minimize] the necessity heating of the substrate [thereby reducing processing time and power consumption], as taught in paragraphs [0046], [0047] of Gafsi.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) and further in view of Niinou et al., US 2011/0080643 A1, previously cited and relied upon.
Regarding Claim 8, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claim 6, but does not appear to explicitly disclose the materials of the high-refractive index and low-refractive index layers, such that: wherein the high-refractive index film is formed from TiO2, and the low-refractive index film is formed from SiO2.
Niinou is related to Takada or Takada-Nielson with respect to polarizing device having anti-reflection layers.
Niinou teaches: wherein the high-refractive index film is formed from TiO2, and the low-refractive index film is formed from SiO2 (anti-reflection multilayer may preferably comprise five optical thin layers of alternating SiO2 layers and TiO2 layers; paragraphs [0080]-[0082] of Niinou).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the SiO2 and TiO2 of Niinou for the device of Takada or Takada-Nielson, because such materials are suitably selected when factors such as thickness and refractive index must be strictly controlled in order to achieve the antireflection effect based on the interference of light, as taught in paragraphs [0080]-[0082] of Niinou.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) and further in view of Takeda, US 2019/0204490 A1, previously cited and relied upon.
Regarding Claims 13 and 17, Takada (or Takada in view of Nielson) discloses the limitations of Claims 1 and 14, but does not appear to disclose: wherein a surface of the polarization plate is covered with an organic water-repellent film OR the method further comprising: a step of forming an organic water-repellent film on a surface of the polarization plate.
Takeda is related to Takada or Takada-Nielson with respect to wire-grid polarizers.
Takeda teaches: wherein a surface of the polarization plate is covered with an organic water-repellent film OR the method further comprising: a step of forming an organic water-repellent film on a surface of the polarization plate (light incident surface of polarizing plate may be covered with an organic water-repellent film; paragraph [0081] of Takeda).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the organic water-repellent film of Takeda for the device of Takada or Takada-Nielson, because such film enables improvement of reliability such as moisture resistance of the polarizing plate, as taught in paragraph [0081] of Takeda.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds 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 RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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, BUMSUK WON can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872