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 .
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-19 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed on January 15, 2026.
New Rejections
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.
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, 6-15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Nakajima (US 2006/0014085).
Regarding claim 1, Nakajima teaches a polarizing plate comprising: a polarizer (light polarization element [0047]); and an optically functional layer (anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer [0047]) and a first protective layer (protective film [0047]) stacked on a light exit surface of the polarizer (when the optically functional layer (anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer [0019]) is sandwiched between the polarizer (light polarization layer [0019]) and the viewer (viewing angle magnification element [0019])), wherein the optically functional layer comprises: a resin layer (adhesive layer [0030]); and acicular microparticles (acicular filler [0030] long dimension to be 10 µm [0056]), the resin layer being formed of a composition including an active energy ray curable resin (acryl type adhesive material, photopolymerized initiator, to make this coated layer adhesive by irradiating it with ultraviolet light [0051]), and the acicular microparticles being oriented in an in-plane direction of the optically functional layer (acicular filler, Fig. 2A). Nakajima teaches that the incoming polarized light from the polarizer is perpendicular to the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles (Fig. 2A), such that the light transmission axis of the polarizer is perpendicular to the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles, and the light absorption axis of the polarizer, which is perpendicular to the light transmission axis of the polarizer, is parallel to the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles. Nakajima is silent regarding the angles between the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles (acicular filler, Fig. 2A) and a light absorption axis of the polarizer to have an average that is within 10° with a standard deviation of 15° or less.
However, Nakajima teaches that the light that exits the optically functional layer has an anisotropic elliptical light pattern (elliptical shape, Fig. 2B [0036]) such that the anisotropy of the elliptical light pattern is at its maximum when the average of the angles between the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles and the light absorption axis of the polarizer is ideally 0° with a standard deviation of ideally 0° (Fig. 2A), thus establishing the average of the angles between the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles and the light absorption axis of the polarizer, of within 10° with a standard deviation of 15° or less, to be a result-effective variable.
Therefore, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been routine experimentation by, and hence obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have optimized the average of the angles between the longitudinal directions of the acicular microparticles and the light absorption axis of the polarizer, in the polarizing plate of Nakajima, to one that is within 10° with a standard deviation of 15° or less, in order to obtain the desired increase in anisotropy of the anisotropic elliptical light pattern, as taught by Nakajima.
Regarding claim 2, Nakajima teaches that the optically functional layer and the first protective layer are sequentially stacked on the polarizer in the stated order (the optically functional layer (anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer [0019]) is sandwiched between the polarizer (light polarization layer [0019]) and the viewer (viewing angle magnification element [0019])).
Regarding claim 4, Nakajima teaches that the optically functional layer is flat on the overall upper and lower surfaces thereof (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 6, Nakajima teaches that the acicular microparticles are impregnated into the resin layer (Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 7, Nakajima teaches that the acicular microparticles have a higher index of refraction (aluminum borate whiskers, refractive index 1.60 [0093]) than the resin layer (acryl type adhesive material, refractive index of the solid content 1.47 [0093]).
Regarding claim 8, Nakajima teaches that a difference in index of refraction between the acicular microparticles and the resin layer is 0.1 (1.60 – 1.47 [0093]) which is within the claimed range of 0.8 or less.
Regarding claim 9, Nakajima teaches that the composition of the resin layer is an active energy ray curable composition (acryl type adhesive material, photopolymerized initiator, to make this coated layer adhesive by irradiating it with ultraviolet light [0051]).
Regarding claim 10, Nakajima teaches that the composition of the resin layer comprises a photoinitiator (photopolymerized initiator, to make this coated layer adhesive by irradiating it with ultraviolet light [0051]).
Regarding claim 11, Nakajima teaches that the acicular microparticles are present in an amount of 5 wt% (mass percent [0062]), which is within the claimed range of 1 wt% to 30 wt% in the optically functional layer (anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer [0062]).
Regarding claim 12, Nakajima teaches that the acicular microparticles have a higher index of refraction (aluminum borate whiskers, refractive index 1.60 [0093]) than the resin layer (acryl type adhesive material, refractive index of the solid content 1.47 [0093]).
Regarding claim 13, Nakajima teaches that the acicular microparticles are formed of at least one selected from among titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, calcium carbonate, aluminum borate, calcium silicate, magnesium sulfate, potassium titanate, glass and a synthetic resin (composite resin [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakajima teaches that a surface of the acicular microparticles is modified (reform the surface of the acicular filler [0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakajima teaches that the acicular microparticles (aluminum borate whiskers [0093]) have a length of 10 µm to 30 µm ([0093]), a diameter of 0.5 µm to 1.0 µm (short dimensions [0093]) which is within the claimed range of 0.5 µm to 2 µm, and an average of as aspect ratio of 10 to 60 (10/1, 30/0.5 [0093]) which is within the claimed range of 5 to 60.
Regarding claim 17, Nakajima teaches that the first protective layer further comprises a functional coating layer on an upper surface thereof (anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer [0019] coated layer adhesive [0051]) is sandwiched between the polarizer (light polarization element [0019]) and the phase difference element [0019])).
Regarding claim 18, Nakajima teaches that the functional coating layer comprises a scattering layer (anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer [0019] scatters light in an elliptical shape, refracted [0036]).
Regarding claim 19, Nakajima teaches an optical display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate (liquid crystal display device [0047]).
Claims 3, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-15, 17-19 above, and further in view of Jung (US 2020/0209680).
Nakajima teaches the polarizing plate comprising a polarizer and an optically functional layer, as described above.
Regarding claim 3, Nakajima fails to teach that the optically functional layer further comprises a contrast ratio enhancing layer.
However, Jung teaches that a polarizing plate further comprises a contrast ratio enhancing layer ([0009, 0178]), for the purpose of providing the desired improvement in black visual sensitivity ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have further comprised a contrast ratio enhancing layer in the optically functional layer of the polarizing plate of Nakajima, in order to obtain the desired improvement in black visual sensitivity, as taught by Jung.
Regarding claim 15, Nakajima fails to teach that the first protective layer has an in-plane retardation of 4,000 nm or more at a wavelength of 550 nm.
However, Jung teaches that a polarizing plate ([0102]) further comprises a protective layer (protective layer or base layer [0036], first base layer [0105]) that has an in-plane retardation of 8,000 nm or more ([0107]) which is within the claimed range of 4,000 nm or more, at a wavelength of 550 nm ([0035]), for the purpose of providing the desired minimization of rainbow spots (become invisible [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the first protective layer of the polarizing plate of Nakajima, with an in-plane retardation that is within a range of 4,000 nm or more, at a wavelength of 550 nm, in order to minimize rainbow spots, as taught by Jung.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art cited above, fail to fairly teach or suggest, even in combination with each other, the polarizing plate described above, in which the optically functional layer has an indentation modulus of 2.0 X 103 MPa to 3.5 X 103 MPa.
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 should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular workweek between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (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 Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center 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.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights