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 on 09/08/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1-22, the applicant argues the rejection under 35 U.S.C 103 is improper over Chen US 2017/0363863 because Chen US 2017/0363863 fails to teach or suggest “Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135° and the HWP film exhibits an in-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Re[550 nm]”) of from -200 nm to -350 nm or from 200 nm to 350 nm and an out-of-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Rth[550 nm]”) of from -350 nm to 350 nm” of claim 1 because “Chen discloses a half waveplate with an optical axis at exactly 45° to the incident polarization direction, which is a conventional configuration for full polarization rotation. Claim 1 excludes 45° and instead defines non-standard angle ranges that result in partial rotation polarization, which are not taught or suggested by Chen. Chen also fails to teach or suggest the specific in-plane and out-of-plane retardation values recited in Claim 1. The claimed ranges of Re[550nm] and Rth[550nm] are selected to achieve precise polarization control and optical tuning. claim 1 combines specific optical axis angles with specific retardation values, which together minimize ghost images and optimize display clarity in HUD systems”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument, firstly, Chen does disclose the HWP film exhibits an in-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Re[550 nm]”) of from -200 nm to -350 nm or from 200 nm to 350 nm (Re[550 nm]=1/2 of 550nm=275nm, or 206nm to 343.75nm, para.59) and an out-of-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Rth[550 nm]”) of from -350 nm to 350 nm (it’s obvious to have Rth[550 nm] of from -350 nm to 350 nm with a half wave plate comprising a cellulose ester polymer (60 µm thickness), see para.113 and 60, the HWP film made of the same material as current application with less thickness).
Secondly, Chen does not explicitly disclose “Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135°”. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135° through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135° in the interlayer of Chen for the purpose of eliminating or reducing a ghost image (para.51 and 52) which is the same purpose as the current application (minimize ghost images), so that the Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical.
Thirdly, an interlayer itself does not include a display light, so that the claim limitations “the optical axis has an angle phi (Φ) relative to the axis formed from the p-polarization direction of a display light projected onto the plane of the HWP film, Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135°” do not having any patentable weight as well.
Therefore, The Examiner maintains the rejection.
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) 1-6 and 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 2017/0363863.
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses an interlayer, in at least figs.8(a)-10(d), comprising:
(a) a first polymer layer (L3 of at least figs.9(a) and 10(c)); and
(b) a half waveplate (“HWP”) film (L2 of at least figs.9(a) and 10(c)) comprising a polymeric material (para.113, 114 123, and 129),
wherein the HWP film has a plane and an optical axis (para.50 and figs.9(a) and 10(c)), wherein the optical axis has an angle phi (Φ) relative to the axis formed from the p-polarization direction of a display light projected onto the plane of the HWP film (para.52), and
wherein the HWP film exhibits an in-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Re[550 nm]”) of from -200 nm to -350 nm or from 200 nm to 350 nm (Re[550 nm]=1/2 of 550nm=275nm, or 206nm to 343.75nm, para.59) and an out-of-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Rth[550 nm]”) of from -350 nm to 350 nm (it’s obvious to have Rth[550 nm] of from -350 nm to 350 nm with a half wave plate comprising a cellulose ester polymer (60 µm thickness), see para.113 and 60, the HWP film made of the same material as current application with less thickness).
Chen does not explicitly disclose Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135°. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135° through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Φ is from an angle of 30° to less than 45°, an angle of greater than 45° to 55°, an angle of greater than 135° to 150°, or an angle of 125° to less than 135° in the interlayer of Chen for the purpose of eliminating or reducing a ghost image (para.51 and 52).
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses the HWP film exhibits: (1) an Re[550 nm] that is from -220 nm to -325 nm or from 220 nm to 325 nm, and a Rth[550 nm] that is from -275 nm to 275 nm; or (2) an Re[550 nm] that is from -250 nm to -300 nm or from 250 nm to 300 nm, and a Rth[550 nm] that is from -150 nm to 150 nm. ((Re[550 nm]=1/2 of 550nm=275nm, or 206nm to 343.75nm, para.59, and it’s obvious to have Rth[550 nm] of from -150 nm to 150 nm with a half wave plate comprising a cellulose ester polymer (60 µm thickness), see para.113).
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses (1) the ratio of Rth[550 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from -0.2 to 0.2; (2) the ratio of Rth[550 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from -1.2 to -0.8; (3) the ratio of Rth[550 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 0.8 to -0.2; or (4) the ratio of Rth[550 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from -2.0 to -1.2 (Re[550 nm]=1/2 of 550nm=275nm, or 206nm to 343.75nm, para.59) and an out-of-plane retardation measured at 550 nm (“Rth[550 nm]”) of from -350 nm to 350 nm (it’s obvious to have Rth[550 nm] of from -350 nm to 350 nm with a half wave plate comprising a cellulose ester polymer (60 µm thickness), see para.113).
Chen does not explicitly disclose different recited range of Φ in claim 3. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to different recited range of Φ in claim 3 through routine experimentation and optimization. The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have different recited range of Φ in claim 3 in the interlayer of Chen for the purpose of eliminating or reducing a ghost image (para.51 and 52).
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses (1) the ratio of Re[450 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 0.75 to 1.10, and the ratio of Re[650 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 0.95 to 1.25; (2) the ratio of Re[450 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 0.80 to 1.0, and the ratio of Re[650 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 1.0 to 1.25; or (3) the ratio of Re[450 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 0.82 to 0.90, and the ratio of Re[650 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is from 1.05 to 1.18 (para.59, the ratio of Re[450 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is 450/550=0.82, the ratio of Re[650 nm] to Re[550 nm] for the HWP film is 650/550=1.18)
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses the HWP film is a multilayer film that is a stack of two quarter wave plate films (para.129).
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses the polymeric material comprises a cellulose ester (para.113).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses the first polymer layer comprises poly(vinyl butyral)(para.55 and 114).
Regarding claim 9, Chen discloses the interlayer further comprises a second polymer layer (see para.114 and 129), wherein the HWP film is disposed between the first polymer layer and the second polymer layer (para.114 and 129).
Regarding claim 10, Chen discloses the second polymer layer comprises a second polymer composition comprising a poly(vinylacetal), a polyurethane, a poly(ethylene-co-vinyl)acetate, a polyvinyl chloride, a poly(vinylchloride-co-methacrylate), a polyethylene, a polyolefin, an ethylene acrylate ester copolymer, a poly(ethylene-co-butyl acrylate), a silicone elastomer, or an epoxy resin (para.114 and 129).
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses the HWP film has a first barrier coating on a first side in contact with the first polymer layer and a second barrier coating on a second side in contact with the second polymer layer (para.129).
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses an adhesion promoter (para.17 and 123).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses a head-up display system (abstract and para.41), in at least figs.8(a)-10(d) and 1(b), comprising: (1) an article (see at least figs.9(a) and 10(c)) comprising: (i) a first rigid substrate (L1 of at least figs.9(a) and 10(c)) having a first outer surface and a first normal axis (ii) a second rigid substrate (L4 of at least figs.9(a) and 10(c)) having a second outer surface; and (iii) the interlayer of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the interlayer is disposed between the first rigid substrate and the second rigid substrate (see at least figs.9(a) and 10(c)).
Regarding claim 14, Chen discloses the system exhibits a projected image in which the intensity ratio of the primary image to the secondary (ghost) image is greater than 50 (para.107).
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses the article further comprises an adhesion promoter (para.17 and 123).
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses further comprising (2) a display device (image projector) for generating the display light as polarized light, and wherein the display light comprises information (see figs.1(b) and figs.9(a) and 10(c)).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 2017/0363863 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Lee US 2022/0299691.
Regarding claim 7, Chen does not explicitly disclose the cellulose ester is a regioselectively substituted cellulose ester.
Lee discloses an interlayer, the cellulose ester is a regioselectively substituted cellulose ester (para.86) for the purpose of forming a retardation layer (para.79).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cellulose ester is a regioselectively substituted cellulose ester as taught by Lee in the system of Chen for the purpose of forming a retardation layer.
Claim(s) 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen US 2017/0363863 as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Asakura US Patent 5999314.
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses further comprising (2) a display device (image projector) for generating the display light, wherein the display light comprises information (see figs.1(b) and figs.9(a) and 10(c)).
Chen does not explicitly disclose a light polarizing device for polarizing the display light.
Asakura discloses a system, in at least figs.1 and 2, a light polarizing device (7 or 7A) for polarizing the display light (see figs.1 and 2) for the purpose of polarizing the display light (col.4, line 24-28).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light polarizing device for polarizing the display light as taught by Asakura in the system of Chen for the purpose of polarizing the display light.
Regarding claims 18-21, Chen (figs.8(a)-10(d)) does not explicitly disclose further comprising a polarization rotator, which is an active polarization rotator or a passive polarization rotator, the passive polarization rotator is a HWP film, the polarization rotator is an active polarization rotator and the active polarization rotator is (i) an active twisted nematic liquid crystal device (“TN-LCD”), (ii) an active electrically controlled birefringence liquid crystal device (“ECB-LCD”), or (iii) an active vertically aligned liquid crystal device (“VA-LCD”).
Chen (para.51) discloses a polarization rotator (a polarization rotatory optical film or a rotatory optical film) can be an active polarization rotator or a passive polarization rotator (para.51), the passive polarization rotator is a HWP film (para.51), the polarization rotator is an active polarization rotator and the active polarization rotator is (i) an active twisted nematic liquid crystal device (“TN-LCD”)(para.51) for the purpose of having ability to rotate or convert polarization between s- and p-polarization can significantly improve the optical quality and reduce ghost images (para.51).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further comprising a polarization rotator, which is an active polarization rotator or a passive polarization rotator, the passive polarization rotator is a HWP film, the polarization rotator is an active polarization rotator and the active polarization rotator is (i) an active twisted nematic liquid crystal device (“TN-LCD”) as taught by Chen (para.51) in the system of Chen (figs.8(a)-10(d)) for the purpose of having ability to rotate or convert polarization between s- and p-polarization can significantly improve the optical quality and reduce ghost images.
Regarding claim 22, Chen discloses the display light is projected incident on the first outer surface at an angle of incidence Ѳ relative to the first normal axis, wherein Ѳ is from 45° to 70° (para.44 discloses Ѳ equal to 56.3° and fig.13 discloses 65.2°).
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pasca US 2009/0195875 (para.22 discloses Φ can be 30.5°) and Oh US 2020/0050045 (para.96 discloses Φ can be 15° to 40°).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871