LAMINATED FILM, CIRCULARLY POLARIZING PLATE, AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Application No. 18/061,799

• Filed: Dec 05, 2022
• Priority: Dec 07, 2021 — JP 2021-198620
• Examiner: WRIGHT, ANDREW RUSSELL
• Art Unit: 2872
• Tech Center: 2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
• Assignee: Fujifilm Holdings Corporation
• OA Round: 4 (Final)

Office Action

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
Claims 27-31 are new.

Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First applicant argues on page 14 that Sugiyama does not disclose the limitation of claim 1, “an adhesion layer is provided only one of between the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer”, because Sugiyama’s anisotropic layers are different from the optically anisotropic layers formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound because they are light diffusion layers.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Sugiyama to disclose the location of the adhesive “an adhesion layer (adhesive paragraph 130 paragraph [0059]) is provided only one of between (the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may be provided only between some of the anisotropic light diffusion layers paragraph [0059]) the first optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 110 fig. 13) and the second optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 120 fig. 13)” and Takahashi to discloses the aligned liquid crystal compound “wherein the first optically anisotropic layer (first optically anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2), second optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2), the third optically anisotropic layer (third optically anisotropic layer 5 fig. 2), and the fourth optically anisotropic layer (fourth optically anisotropic layer 14 fig. 2) is a layer formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound (the optically anisotropic layers can be formed by aligned liquid crystals paragraph [0066]), an adhesion layer selected from the group consisting of an adhesive layer and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer (adhesive layer paragraph [0138]).”It would be obvious to use the location of the adhesive taught by Sugiyama with the aligned liquid crystal compound anisotropic layers taught by Takashi because both are pressure sensitive adhesives between anisotropic layers.
Second applicant argues on page 15 that Sugiyama does not disclose the limitation of claim 1, “an adhesion layer is provided only one of between the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer”, because there is no motivation to combine the adhesive of Sugiyama to achieve the claimed features of the invention such as the concern about front reflection from the adhesion layers.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Sugiyama to disclose the location of the adhesive “an adhesion layer (adhesive paragraph 130 paragraph [0059]) is provided only one of between (the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may be provided only between some of the anisotropic light diffusion layers paragraph [0059]) the first optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 110 fig. 13) and the second optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 120 fig. 13)”, and states that there is no limitation in claim 1 regarding the feature of front reflection.
Third applicant argues on page 15 that Onoe does not disclose the limitation of claim 1, “the laminated film has a minimum transmittance of 60% or more in a wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm; and the laminated film has a minimum transmittance of more than 75% in a wavelength range of 450 to 700 nm”, because Onoe discloses laminated nanosheets containing layered inorganic compounds and is a different structure from the laminated film of liquid crystal layers.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Onoe to disclose the laminated film (laminated nanosheets
paragraph [0056]) has a minimum transmittance of 60% (total light transmittance of 85% or higher can
be obtained paragraph [0058]) or more in a wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (range of 400 nm to 800
nm paragraph [0058]); and
the laminated film (laminated nanosheets paragraph [0056] of translation) has a minimum
transmittance total light transmittance of 85% or higher can be obtained paragraph [0058] of
translation) of more than 75% in a wavelength range of 450 to 700 nm (range of 400 nm to 800 nm
paragraph [0058] of translation)”. The laminated nanosheets are made from birefringent materials paragraph [0056] of translation which are optically anisotropic such as the layers of Takahashi and are shown as an example of teaching the claimed transmittance and wavelength. It would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention have a high transmittance as taught by Onoe in the elliptical polarizer of Takahashi. The film of the present invention has high transparency across the entire visible light range, exhibits low haze, is colorless, and has minimal in-plane transparency unevenness (Onoe paragraph [0058] of translation) which is obvious to optimize the optically anisotropic layers of Takahashi that are made from materials with high transparency at 550 nm (Takahashi paragraphs [0124] - [0125]) which is in the claimed wavelength range to allow for visible light to pass through.
Fourth applicant argues on page 16 that Yamamoto, You and Verall cannot be combined with Takahashi to disclose the limitations of claims 21, 22 and 23, because the combination of layers disclosed by Takahashi achieve the desired effect with their in plane and thickness direction retardation and the layers described in Yamamoto, You and Verall have different optical properties.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Yamamoto to disclose an optically anisotropic layer that can be a negative plate is more preferably used for optical compensation in combination with a liquid crystal cell (paragraph [0058] of translation), You to disclose an optically anisotropic layer that is a negative c plate that improves the viewing angle (paragraph [0128] of translation), and Verall to disclose an optically anisotropic layer that is a preferred embodiment of the optical retardation layer that is twisted or cholesteric film (paragraphs [0080-0094]). It would be obvious to combine the layers of Yamamoto, You and Verall with the layers of Takahashi because they have improved optical properties and meet the claimed limitations.
Fifth applicant argues on page 17 that Yamamoto, You and Verall cannot be combined with Takahashi to disclose the limitations of claims 21, 22 and 23, because the optical properties of the entire member would change due to the added layer which would also increase the cost and thickness of the example in Takahashi.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Yamamoto to disclose an optically anisotropic layer that can be a negative plate is more preferably used for optical compensation in combination with a liquid crystal cell (paragraph [0058] of translation), You to disclose an optically anisotropic layer that is a negative c plate that improves the viewing angle (paragraph [0128] of translation), and Verall to disclose an optically anisotropic layer that is a preferred embodiment of the optical retardation layer that is twisted or cholesteric film (paragraphs [0080-0094]). The layers of Yamamoto, You and Verall have optical properties that can improve the layers of Takahashi when they are replaced to meet the limitations of the claims 21, 22 and 23. Additionally limitations for cost reduction and overall thickness of the layers are not claimed limitations in claim 1 or 21-23.
Sixth applicant argues on page 17 that Verall does not disclose the limitation of claim 24, “wherein the first optically anisotropic layer is a negative C plate, the second optically anisotropic layer is a negative A plate, the third optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned, and the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a positive C plate”, because if the thickness of the optically anisotropic layer of Verall is too thick compared to the optically anisotropic layer of Verall the results are undesirable.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Verall to disclose, “wherein the first optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], first anisotropic layer taught above by
Takahashi) is a negative C plate (the optical retardation film is a negative C plate paragraph [0101]), the
second optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052],
second anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) is a negative A plate (the optical retardation film
can be a negative A plate paragraph [0098]), the third optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one
optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], third anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) is a layer
formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (the optical retardation film is a twisted or cholesteric film paragraph [0094]), and the fourth optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one optical
retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], fourth anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) is a positive C
plate (the optical retardation film is a positive C plate paragraph [0100])”. The thickness of the first anisotropic layer of Takahashi is defined by the equation Re1 = (nx1-ny1) x d1 as d1 = (nx1-ny1)/ Re1 where nx1 and ny1 are refractive indexes and Re1 is retardation value (paragraph [0068]) and is a results effective variable that could be met by the properties of another layer such as the retardation film 18 of Verall.
Seventh applicant argues on page 18 that Taguchi does not disclose the limitation of claim 25, “wherein the laminated film comprises no liquid crystal cell” because Takahashi discloses arranging the first anisotropic layer to the to the third and fourth anisotropic layers to sandwich a liquid crystal cell.
Examiner disagrees and has cited Taguchi to disclose “wherein the laminated film (heat ray cutting film of fig. 2 paragraph [0056] is laminated paragraph [0050]) comprises no liquid crystal cell (the heat ray cutting film comprises infrared ray absorbing layer 20, light reflecting layers 14a, 14b, 16a and 16b and substrate 12 fig. 2, the light reflecting layers are optically anisotropic paragraph [0050]”. Taguchi discloses an arrangement of optically anisotropic layers without a liquid crystal layer that are laminated on to a substrate (paragraphs [0049-0050]).

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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4-5, 8-11, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Takahashi et al. (US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1) and Onoe (JP 2008274043 A).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses in at least example 2 (figure 2), a laminated film (the
elliptical polarizer is laminated paragraph [0015]) comprising:
a first optically anisotropic layer (first optically anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2 paragraph [0164]);
a second optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2 paragraph [0156]);
a third optically anisotropic layer (third optically anisotropic layer 5 fig. 2 paragraph [0156]); and
a fourth optically anisotropic layer (fourth optically anisotropic layer 14 fig. 2 paragraph [0165])
in this order (optically anisotropic layers arranged from top to bottom fig. 2),
wherein the first optically anisotropic layer (first optically anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2), second
optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2), the third optically anisotropic layer
(third optically anisotropic layer 5 fig. 2), and the fourth optically anisotropic layer (fourth optically
anisotropic layer 14 fig. 2) is a layer formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound (the optically
anisotropic layers can be formed by aligned liquid crystals paragraph [0066]), an adhesion layer selected from the group consisting of an adhesive layer and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer (adhesive layer paragraph [0138]).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, the pressure sensitive adhesive layer is provided only one
of between the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer, between the
second optically anisotropic layer and the third optically anisotropic layer, and between the third
optically anisotropic layer and the fourth optically anisotropic layer, and
the laminated film has a minimum transmittance of 60% or more in a wavelength range of 400
to 700 nm; and
the laminated film has a minimum transmittance of 75% or more in a wavelength range of 450
to 700 nm.
However Sugiyama discloses in at least figure 13, an adhesion layer (adhesive paragraph 130
paragraph [0059]) is provided only one of bet0ween (the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer may be
provided only between some of the anisotropic light diffusion layers paragraph [0059]) the first optically
anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 110 fig. 13) and the second optically anisotropic layer
(anisotropic light diffusion layer 120 fig. 13).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to only use one layer of the adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the first and
second layers of Takahashi. This pressure-sensitive adhesive layer 130 may be provided, if necessary, but
is preferred because the presence of the pressure sensitive adhesive layer 130 somewhat increases the
maximum value of the transmittance in the non-diffusion region of the anisotropic optical film 100 and
somewhat widens the width (diffusion width) of the diffusion region (paragraph [0059]).
Additionally Onoe discloses in at least figure, the laminated film (laminated nanosheets
paragraph [0056]) has a minimum transmittance of 60% (total light transmittance of 85% or higher can
be obtained paragraph [0058]) or more in a wavelength range of 400 to 700 nm (range of 400 nm to 800
nm paragraph [0058]); and
the laminated film (laminated nanosheets paragraph [0056] of translation) has a minimum
transmittance total light transmittance of 85% or higher can be obtained paragraph [0058] of
translation) of more than 75% in a wavelength range of 450 to 700 nm (range of 400 nm to 800 nm
paragraph [0058] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention have a high transmittance as taught by Onoe in the elliptical polarizer of Takahashi. The film of the present invention has high transparency across the entire visible light range,
exhibits low haze, is colorless, and has minimal in-plane transparency unevenness (Onoe paragraph [0058] of translation) which is obvious to optimize the optically anisotropic layers of Takahashi that are made from materials with high transparency at 550 nm (Takahashi paragraphs [0124] - [0125]) which is in the claimed wavelength range to allow for visible light to pass through.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Takahashi further discloses, the adhesion layer (adhesive layer paragraph
[0138]) is disposed between (the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth optically anisotropic layers and the
polarizer may be attached to each other via a tacky adhesive layer paragraph [0137]) the second
optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2) and the third optically anisotropic
layer (third optically anisotropic layer 5 fig. 2).
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer and the second
optically anisotropic layer are in direct contact with each other and the third optically anisotropic layer
and the fourth optically anisotropic layer are in direct contact with each other.
However Sugiyama further discloses, the first optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light
diffusion layer 110 fig. 13) and the second optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 120
fig. 13) are in direct contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked
without any pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]) or are laminated through an alignment
film and the third optically anisotropic layer (third anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) and the
fourth optically anisotropic layer (fourth anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) are in direct
contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked without any
pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to not use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the layers of Takahashi. Less
adhesive decreases the overall width of the film (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer formed of an
ultraviolet curable adhesive.
However Sugiyama further discloses, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer (adhesive layer 130
paragraph [0059]) formed of an ultraviolet curable adhesive (the adhesive can be cured by and ultra
violet ray paragraph [0082]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the first and second layers of
Takahashi. The adhesive secures the two optically anisotropic layer together with an ultraviolet curable
material.
Regarding claim 8, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Takahashi further discloses the laminated film according to claim 1 (see claim
1 rejection above), a circularly polarizing plate (circular polarizer paragraph [0007]) comprising:
a polarizer (polarizer 1 fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 8.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein a polymer film is not provided between the laminated film
and the polarizer.
However Sugiyama further discloses, wherein a polymer film (no polymer film in fig. 13) is not
provided between the laminated film (optical film 100 fig. 13) and the polarizer (polarization plate 1014
fig. 13).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to add the polarizer as taught by Sugiyama do the layers of Takahashi. The polarizer
can be added without a polymer layer.
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Takahashi further discloses, A display device comprising (the vertical alignment
type liquid crystal display device paragraph [0157]):
the laminated film according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 8 and Takahashi further discloses, A display device (the vertical alignment
type liquid crystal display device paragraph [0157]) comprising:
the circularly polarizing plate according to claim 8 (circular polarizer paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 17, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 4.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer formed of an
ultraviolet curable adhesive.
However Sugiyama further discloses, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer (adhesive layer 130
paragraph [0059]) formed of an ultraviolet curable adhesive (the adhesive can be cured by and ultra
violet ray paragraph [0082]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the first and second layers of
Takahashi. The adhesive secures the two optically anisotropic layer together with an ultraviolet
curable material.
Regarding claim 26, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film has a minimum transmittance of more
than 90% in a wavelength range of 450 to 700 nm.
However Onoe further discloses, the laminated film (laminated nanosheets paragraph [0056] of
translation) has a minimum transmittance total light transmittance of 85% or higher can be obtained
paragraph [0058] of translation) of more than 85% in a wavelength range of 450 to 700 nm (range of
400 nm to 800 nm paragraph [0058] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention have a high transmittance as taught by Onoe in the elliptical polarizer of Takahashi. It
is possible to further improve transmittance by laminating, for example, a low refractive index antireflective coating, a multilayer anti-reflective coating utilizing optical interference, or a film with antiglare treatment onto the surface of the film (paragraph [0058] of translation).
Additionally It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists
where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium
Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as
proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1%
iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25%
molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The
proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the Onoe teaches a value of more than 85% which is so close to the claimed
range of more than 90% that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to choose the transmittance such that it is at least 90% since it has
been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not
overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d
775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an
alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a
reference disclosing alloys of0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel,
0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the
art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.

Claims 2, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et
al. (US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1) and Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Harrold et al. (US 20210405403 A1).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Takahashi further discloses, the liquid crystal compound (the first optically
anisotropic layer 3 can be formed by aligned liquid crystals paragraph [0066]) on a surface of the first
optically anisotropic layer (the first optically anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2) on a second optically anisotropic
layer side (the first optically anisotropic layer 3 faces the second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2) the
liquid crystal compound (the second optically anisotropic layer 4 can be formed by aligned liquid crystals
paragraph [0066]) on a surface of the second optically anisotropic layer (the second optically anisotropic
layer 4 fig. 2) on a first optically anisotropic layer side (the second optically anisotropic layer 4 faces the
first optically anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2).
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film satisfies one or two of the following
requirements Xl to X3,
Requirement Xl: the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer
are in direct contact with each other or are laminated through an alignment film and an alignment
direction of the liquid crystal compound and an alignment direction of the liquid crystal compound are different from each other.
Requirement X2: the second optically anisotropic layer and the third optically anisotropic layer
are in direct contact with each other or are laminated through an alignment film,
and an alignment direction of the liquid crystal compound on a surface of the second optically
anisotropic layer on a third optically anisotropic layer side and an alignment direction of the liquid
crystal compound on a surface of the third optically anisotropic layer on the second optically anisotropic
layer side are different from each other,
Requirement X3: the third optically anisotropic layer and the fourth optically anisotropic layer
are in direct contact with each other or are laminated through an alignment film,
and an alignment direction of the liquid crystal compound on a surface of the third optically
anisotropic layer on a fourth optically anisotropic layer side and an alignment direction of the liquid
crystal compound on a surface of the fourth optically anisotropic layer on the third optically anisotropic
layer side are different from each other.
However Sugiyama further discloses, wherein the laminated film (optical film 100 fig. 13)
satisfies one or two of the following requirements Xl to X3,
Requirement Xl: the first optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 110 fig. 13)
and the second optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 120 fig. 13) are in direct
contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked without any
pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]) or are laminated through an alignment film,
Requirement X2: the second optically anisotropic layer and the third optically anisotropic layer
are in direct contact with each other or are laminated through an alignment film,
and an alignment direction of the liquid crystal compound on a surface of the second optically
anisotropic layer on a third optically anisotropic layer side and an alignment direction of the liquid
crystal compound on a surface of the third optically anisotropic layer on the second optically anisotropic
layer side are different from each other,
Requirement X3: the third optically anisotropic layer and the fourth optically anisotropic layer
are in direct contact with each other or are laminated through an alignment film,
and an alignment direction of the liquid crystal compound on a surface of the third optically
anisotropic layer on a fourth optically anisotropic layer side and an alignment direction of the liquid
crystal compound on a surface of the fourth optically anisotropic layer on the third optically anisotropic
layer side are different from each other.
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to not use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the first and second layers of
Takahashi. Less adhesive decreases the overall width of the film (paragraph [0059]).
Additionally Harrold discloses in at least figure 2A, an alignment film (switchable retarder 300
fig. 2A) and an alignment direction (homogenous alignment for layer 314 paragraph [0135]) of the first
liquid crystal compound (liquid crystal layer 314 fig. 2A) and an alignment direction (the passive
compensation retarder 330 has homeotropic alignment paragraph [0184]) of the second liquid crystal
compound (passive compensation retarder 330 fig. 2A) are different (homeotropic and homogenous are
different alignments as described in current application paragraph [0045]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a homogenous alignment as taught by Harrold for the first anisotropic layer of
Takahashi to be different from the homotropic second anisotropic layer. The homogenous liquid
crystal layer has increase resilience paragraph [0185]).
Regarding claim 13, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Harrold discloses
all the limitations of claim 2 and Takahashi further discloses, the adhesion layer (adhesive layer
paragraph [0138]) is disposed between (the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth optically anisotropic
layers and the polarizer may be attached to each other via a tacky adhesive layer paragraph [0137]) the
second optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2) and the third optically
anisotropic layer (third optically anisotropic layer 5 fig. 2).
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer and the second
optically anisotropic layer are in direct contact with each other,
and the third optically anisotropic layer and the fourth optically anisotropic layer are in direct
contact with each other.
However Sugiyama further discloses, the first optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light
diffusion layer 110 fig. 13) and the second optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 120
fig. 13) are in direct contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked
without any pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]) or are laminated through an alignment
film and the third optically anisotropic layer (third anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) and the
fourth optically anisotropic layer (fourth anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) are in direct
contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked without any
pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to not use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the layers of Takahashi. Less
adhesive decreases the overall width of the film (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 15, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Harrold discloses
all the limitations of claim 2.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer formed of an
ultraviolet curable adhesive.
However Sugiyama further discloses, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer (adhesive paragraph
[0137]) formed of an ultraviolet curable adhesive (the adhesive can be cured by and ultra violet ray
paragraph [0162]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the first and second layers of
Takahashi. The adhesive secures the two optically anisotropic layer together with an ultraviolet curable
material.

Claims 3, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et
al. (US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1) and Onoe (JP 2008274043
A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bastiaansen et al. (US 20030058386 A1).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Takahashi further discloses, wherein the laminated film satisfies any one of the following requirement Yl, Y2, or Y3,
Requirement Yl: the adhesion layer (adhesive layer paragraph [0138]) is disposed between (the
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth optically anisotropic layers and the polarizer may be attached to
each other via a tacky adhesive layer paragraph [0137]) the first optically anisotropic layer (first optically
anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2) and the second optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4
fig. 2).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, a difference between a refractive index of the adhesion
layer and a refractive index of the first optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less, and a difference
between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and a refractive index of the second optically
anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less,
Requirement Y2: the adhesion layer is disposed between the second optically anisotropic layer
and the third optically anisotropic layer,
the difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and the refractive index of the
second optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less, and
a difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and a refractive index of the
third optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less,
Requirement Y3: the adhesion layer is disposed between the third optically anisotropic layer and
the fourth optically anisotropic layer,
the difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and the refractive index of the
third optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less, and
a difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and a refractive index of the
fourth optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less.
However, Bastiaansen discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 10), a difference between a refractive
index (refractive index= 1.569 paragraph [0104]) of the adhesion layer (UV curable acrylate mixture
adhesion layer 21 fig. 10) and a refractive index (refractive index= 1.671 and 1.546 paragraph [0101]) of
the first optically anisotropic layer (PET tape 20 fig. 10 is the anisotropic separating layer paragraphs
[0100]) is 0.10 (as a result of the values 1.569 - 1.546 = 0.023) or less, the difference between 1.671 and
1.569 is 0.102,
a difference between a refractive index (refractive index= 1.569 paragraph [0104]) of the
adhesion layer (UV curable acrylate mixture adhesion layer 21 fig. 10) a refractive index (refractive index
refractive index= 1.671 and 1.546 of the anisotropic layer paragraph [0101]) of the second optically
anisotropic layer (the second optically anisotropic layer is taught above by Takahashi).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the refractive indices of the adhesive and anisotropic layer as taught by
Bastiaansen for the adhesive and anisotropic layers of Takahashi. When the adhesive has a close index
to the anisotropic layers the light the refraction of the light is not significantly changed.
Bastiaansen does not explicitly disclose, the difference between 1.671 and 1.569 is less than
0.10, And a second anisotropic layer.
Additionally, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists
where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium
Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as
proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1%
iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25%
molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The
proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 0.102 which is so close to the claimed range
of 0.10 or less that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to choose the difference in refractive indices such that the difference is
less than 0.01 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed
ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of
America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a
rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron,
balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum,
balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close
that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See
M PEP §2144.05.
Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make the difference between a refractive index of the adhesion layer
and a refractive index of the second optically anisotropic layer 0.10 or less, since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or
workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the
current instance, the difference in refractive index is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus
one would have been motivated to optimize the difference in refractive index because it is an art
recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result
effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA
1977). See M PEP §2144.05(11)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result -effective variable would
be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach
another workable product or process."
Regarding claim 14, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Bastiaansen
discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and Takahashi further discloses, the adhesion layer (adhesive layer
paragraph [0138]) is disposed between (the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth optically anisotropic
layers and the polarizer may be attached to each other via a tacky adhesive layer paragraph [0137]) the
second optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2) and the third optically
anisotropic layer (third optically anisotropic layer 5 fig. 2).
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer and the second
optically anisotropic layer are in direct contact with each other. and the third optically anisotropic layer
and the fourth optically anisotropic layer are in direct contact with each other.
However Sugiyama further discloses, the first optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light
diffusion layer 110 fig. 13) and the second optically anisotropic layer (anisotropic light diffusion layer 120
fig. 13) are in direct contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked
without any pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]) or are laminated through an alignment
film and the third optically anisotropic layer (third anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) and the
fourth optically anisotropic layer (fourth anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) are in direct
contact with each other (all of the anisotropic light diffusion layers may be stacked without any
pressure-sensitive adhesive layer paragraph [0059]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to not use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the layers of Takahashi. Less
adhesive decreases the overall width of the film (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 16, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Bastiaansen
discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer formed of an
ultraviolet curable adhesive.
However Sugiyama further discloses, wherein the adhesion layer is a layer (adhesive paragraph
[0137]) formed of an ultraviolet curable adhesive (the adhesive can be cured by and ultra violet ray
paragraph [0162]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use adhesive as taught by Sugiyama between the first and second layers of
Takahashi. The adhesive secures the two optically anisotropic layer together with an ultraviolet
curable material.

Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al.
(US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1) and Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Mikoshiba (JP 2007171525 A).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film has a thickness of 20 um or less.
However Mikoshiba discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1), wherein the laminated film has a
thickness of 20 um or less. wherein the laminated film (the layers first optically anisotropic layer 2,
antireflection layer SA, alignment film 4A, second optically anisotropic layer 3A, an alignment film 4B,
second optically anisotropic layer 3B and antireflection layer SB are laminated on to support 1 in optical
compensation element 10 paragraph [0141] of translation) has a thickness of 20 um (the total thickness
is 4.36 um with each layer having a thickness of, first optically anisotropic layer 2 = 0.76 um paragraph
[0142] of translation, anti-reflection layer SA= 0.24 um paragraph [0143] of translation, alignment film
4A = 0.6 um paragraph [0144] of translation, second optically anisotropic layer 3A = 0.96 um paragraph
[0147] of translation, an alignment film 4B is the same as 4A paragraph [0150] of translation, second
optically anisotropic layer 3B is the same as 3A paragraph [0150] of translation and anti-reflection layer
SB= 0.24 um paragraph [0152] of translation) or less.
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make the laminated film have a thickness of 20 um or less, since it has
been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the current instance, the thickness is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus one
would have been motivated to optimize the thickness because it is an art-recognized result-effective
variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP
§2144.0S(ll)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the
only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable
product or process."
Regarding claim 20, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 4. Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film has a thickness of
20 um or less.
However Mikoshiba discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1), wherein the laminated film has a
thickness of 20 um or less. wherein the laminated film (the layers first optically anisotropic layer 2,
antireflection layer SA, alignment film 4A, second optically anisotropic layer 3A, an alignment film 4B,
second optically anisotropic layer 3B and antireflection layer SB are laminated on to support 1 in optical
compensation element 10 paragraph [0141] of translation) has a thickness of 20 um (the total thickness
is 4.36 um with each layer having a thickness of, first optically anisotropic layer 2 = 0.76 um paragraph
[0142] of translation, anti-reflection layer SA= 0.24 um paragraph [0143] of translation, alignment film
4A = 0.6 um paragraph [0144] of translation, second optically anisotropic layer 3A = 0.96 um paragraph
[0147] of translation, an alignment film 4B is the same as 4A paragraph [0150] of translation, second
optically anisotropic layer 3B is the same as 3A paragraph [0150] of translation and anti-reflection layer
SB= 0.24 um paragraph [0152] of translation) or less.
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make the laminated film have a thickness of 20 um or less, since it has
been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the current instance, the thickness is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus one
would have been motivated to optimize the thickness because it is an art-recognized result-effective
variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP
§2144.05(11)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the
only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable
product or process."

Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1)in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1) and Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as
applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Morishima (US 20140036175 A1).
Regarding claim 7, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the laminated film has an in-plane retardation of
100 to 180 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm.
However Morishima discloses in at least figure 1, wherein the laminated film (optical film 10 fig.
1) has an in-plane retardation (total value of in plane retardation RE(550) paragraph [0012]) of 100 to
180 nm (110-160nm paragraph [0012]) at a wavelength of 550 nm (RE(550) is at 550nm paragraph
[0012]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to make the in-plane retardation of 100 to 180 nm, since it has been
held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum
or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the
current instance, the in-plane retardation is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus one would
have been motivated to optimize the convergence angle because it is an art-recognized result-effective
variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See M PEP
§2144.05(11)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the
only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable
product or process."

Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) and
Harrold et al. (US 20210405403 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Bastiaansen et al. (US 20030058386 A1).
Regarding claim 12, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Harrold discloses
all the limitations of claim 2 and Takahashi further discloses, wherein the laminated film satisfies any
one of the following requirement Yl, Y2, orY3,
Requirement Yl: the adhesion layer (adhesive layer paragraph [0138]) is disposed between (the
first, second, third, fourth, and fifth optically anisotropic layers and the polarizer may be attached to
each other via a tacky adhesive layer paragraph [0137]) the first optically anisotropic layer (first optically
anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2) and the second optically anisotropic layer (second optically anisotropic layer 4
fig. 2).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, a difference between a refractive index of the adhesion
layer and a refractive index of the first optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less, and a difference
between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and a refractive index of the second optically
anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less,
Requirement Y2: the adhesion layer is disposed between the second optically anisotropic layer
and the third optically anisotropic layer, the difference between the refractive index of the adhesion
layer and the refractive index of the second optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less, and
a difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and a refractive index of the
third optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less,
Requirement Y3: the adhesion layer is disposed between the third optically anisotropic layer and
the fourth optically anisotropic layer, the difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer
and the refractive index of the third optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less, and
a difference between the refractive index of the adhesion layer and a refractive index of the
fourth optically anisotropic layer is 0.10 or less.
However, Bastiaansen discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 10), a difference between a refractive
index (refractive index= 1.569 paragraph [0104]) of the adhesion layer (UV curable acrylate mixture
adhesion layer 21 fig. 10) and a refractive index (refractive index= 1.671 and 1.546 paragraph [0101]) of
the first optically anisotropic layer (PET tape 20 fig. 10 is the anisotropic separating layer paragraphs
[0100]) is 0.10 (as a result of the values 1.569 - 1.546 = 0.023) or less, the difference between 1.671 and
1.569 is 0.102,
a difference between a refractive index (refractive index= 1.569 paragraph [0104]) of the
adhesion layer (UV curable acrylate mixture adhesion layer 21 fig. 10) a refractive index (refractive index
refractive index= 1.671 and 1.546 of the anisotropic layer paragraph [0101]) of the second optically
anisotropic layer (the second optically anisotropic layer is taught above by Takahashi).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use the refractive indices of the adhesive and anisotropic layer as taught by
Bastiaansen for the adhesive and anisotropic layers of Takahashi. When the adhesive has a close index
to the anisotropic layers the light the refraction of the light is not significantly changed.
Bastiaansen does not explicitly disclose, the difference between 1.671 and 1.569 is less than
0.10, And a second anisotropic layer.
Additionally, It is a well-established proposition that a prima facie case of obviousness exists
where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium
Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as
proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1%
iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25%
molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The
proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the
same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
In the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 0.102 which is so close to the claimed range of 0.10 or less that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same
properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to choose the difference in refractive indices such that the difference is
less than 0.01 since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed
ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of
America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a
rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron,
balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum,
balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close
that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See
Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make the difference between a refractive index of the adhesion layer
and a refractive index of the second optically anisotropic layer 0.10 or less, since it has been held that
where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or
workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the
current instance, the difference in refractive index is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus
one would have been motivated to optimize the difference in refractive index because it is an art
recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CC 1977). See M PEP §2144.0S(ll)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be
one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach
another workable product or process."

Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1)in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) and
Harrold (US 20210405403 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Mikoshiba (JP
2007171525 A).
Regarding claim 18, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Harrold discloses
all the limitations of claim 2.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film has a thickness of 20 um or less.
However Mikoshiba discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1), wherein the laminated film has a
thickness of 20 um or less. wherein the laminated film (the layers first optically anisotropic layer 2,
antireflection layer SA, alignment film 4A, second optically anisotropic layer 3A, an alignment film 4B,
second optically anisotropic layer 3B and antireflection layer SB are laminated on to support 1 in optical
compensation element 10 paragraph [0141] of translation) has a thickness of 20 um (the total thickness
is 4.36 um with each layer having a thickness of, first optically anisotropic layer 2 = 0.76 um paragraph
[0142] of translation, anti-reflection layer SA= 0.24 um paragraph [0143] of translation, alignment film
4A = 0.6 um paragraph [0144] of translation, second optically anisotropic layer 3A = 0.96 um paragraph
[0147] of translation, an alignment film 4B is the same as 4A paragraph [0150] of translation, second
optically anisotropic layer 3B is the same as 3A paragraph [0150] of translation and anti-reflection layer
SB= 0.24 um paragraph [0152] of translation) or less.
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make the laminated film have a thickness of 20 um or less, since it has
been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the current instance, the thickness is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus one
would have been motivated to optimize the thickness because it is an art-recognized result-effective
variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP
§2144.0S(ll)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the
only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable
product or process."

Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) and
Bastiaansen et al. (US 20030058386 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of
Mikoshiba (JP 2007171525 A).
Regarding claim 19, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama, Onoe and Bastiaansen
discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film has a thickness of 20 um or less.
However Mikoshiba discloses in at least example 1 (fig. 1), wherein the laminated film has a
thickness of 20 um or less. wherein the laminated film (the layers first optically anisotropic layer 2,
antireflection layer SA, alignment film 4A, second optically anisotropic layer 3A, an alignment film 4B,
second optically anisotropic layer 3B and antireflection layer SB are laminated on to support 1 in optical
compensation element 10 paragraph [0141] of translation) has a thickness of 20 um (the total thickness
is 4.36 um with each layer having a thickness of, first optically anisotropic layer 2 = 0.76 um paragraph
[0142] of translation, anti-reflection layer SA= 0.24 um paragraph [0143] of translation, alignment film
4A = 0.6 um paragraph [0144] of translation, second optically anisotropic layer 3A = 0.96 um paragraph
[0147] of translation, an alignment film 4B is the same as 4A paragraph [0150] of translation, second
optically anisotropic layer 3B is the same as 3A paragraph [0150] of translation and antireflection
layer SB= 0.24 um paragraph [0152] of translation) or less.
Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to make the laminated film have a thickness of 20 um or less, since it has
been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the
optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A.
1955). In the current instance, the thickness is an art recognized results effective variable. Thus one
would have been motivated to optimize the thickness because it is an art-recognized result-effective
variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves
only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP
§2144.0S(ll)(B) "after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the
only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable
product or process."

Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied
to claim 1 above and in further view of Yamamoto (JP 2010085533 A).
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer, the
second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth optically anisotropic
layer is a negative A plate, -35 nm,
the in-plane retardation of the negative A plate at a wavelength of 550 nm is 70 to 200 nm, and
the thickness direction retardation of the negative A plate at a wavelength of 550 nm is - 100 to -35 nm.
However Yamamoto discloses in at least figure 1, wherein at least one of the first optically
anisotropic layer (the protective film 16 can be a negative A plate paragraph [0058] of translation which
is anisotropic layer as described in paragraph [0015] of the current application), the second optically
anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a
negative A plate (the protective film 16 can be a negative A plate paragraph [0058]),
the in-plane retardation of the negative A plate (the protective film 16 fig. 1) at a wavelength of
550 nm is 70 to 200 nm (the negative A plate in-plane retardation Re(550) was 136 nm paragraph [0097]
of translation), and the thickness direction retardation of the negative A plate (the protective film 16 fig.
1) at a wavelength of 550 nm is - 100 to -35 nm (the negative A plate thickness retardation Rth (550) was
-68 nm paragraph [0097] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a negative A plate as taught by Ye as an optical anisotropic layer of Takahashi. The negative A plate is more preferably used for optical compensation in combination with a liquid crystal cell (paragraph [0058] of translation).

Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied
to claim 1 above and in further view of You (WO 2020153639 A1).
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer, the
second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth optically anisotropic
layer is a negative C plate, the in-plane retardation of the negative C plate at a wavelength of
550 nm is Oto 10 nm, and the thickness direction retardation of the negative C plate at a wavelength of
550 nm is 10 to 120 nm.
However You discloses in at least figure 1, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic
layer (negative c plate 50 fig. 1 which is anisotropic layer as described in paragraph [0015] of the current
application), the second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth
optically anisotropic layer is a negative C plate, the in-plane retardation of the negative C plate at a
wavelength of 550 nm is Oto 10 nm (the negative C plate (50) can have an in-plane phase difference of
about O nm to about 30 nm at a wavelength of about 550 nm paragraph [0128] of translation), and the
thickness direction retardation of the negative C plate at a wavelength of 550 nm is 10 to 120 nm (The
negative C plate (50) can have a thickness direction phase difference of about O nm to about 70 nm at a
wavelength of about 550 nm paragraph [0127] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a negative C plate as taught by You as an optical anisotropic layer of Takahashi.
The properties of the negative C plate allow for an improvement in viewing angle (paragraph [0128] of
translation).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the
prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (in-plane retardation of the negative C plate at a
wavelength of 550 nm is Oto 10 nm and thickness direction retardation of the negative C plate at a
wavelength of 550 nm is 10 to 120 nm required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by You (in
plane phase difference of about O nm to about 30 nm and a thickness direction phase difference of
about O nm to about 70 nm). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff,
919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations
of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%"
allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as
falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art
reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less
than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is
provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches
the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329,332, 49
USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and
claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no
showing of criticality of the claimed range).

Claims 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US
20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied
to claim 1 above and in further view of Verall et al. (US 20060193999 A1).
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer, the
second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth optically anisotropic
layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned.
However Verall discloses in at least figure 2, wherein at least one of the first optically
anisotropic layer, the second optically anisotropic layer the third optically anisotropic layer (there is at
least one optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], third anisotropic layer taught above by
Takahashi), or the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound
twist-aligned (the optical retardation film is a twisted or cholesteric film paragraph [0094]).
Takahashi discloses the claimed invention except the use of a twist aligned layer for the
anisotropic layer. Verall shows that the retardation film with a twist alignment is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because the retardation film with a twist alignment and the anisotropic layers were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the retardation film with a twist alignment instead of the anisotropic layer, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See M PEP Regarding claim 24, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1 and Takahashi further discloses a first optically anisotropic layer (first optically
anisotropic layer 3 fig. 2 paragraph [0164]), second optically anisotropic layer (second optically
anisotropic layer 4 fig. 2 paragraph [0156]), third optically anisotropic layer (third optically anisotropic
layer 5 fig. 2 paragraph [0156]) and fourth optically anisotropic (fourth optically anisotropic layer 14 fig.2
paragraph [0165]).
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer is a negative C
plate, the second optically anisotropic layer is a negative A plate, the third optically anisotropic layer is a
layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned, and the fourth optically anisotropic layer
is a positive C plate.
However Verall discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer (there is
at least one optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], first anisotropic layer taught above by
Takahashi) is a negative C plate (the optical retardation film is a negative C plate paragraph [0101]), the
second optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052],
second anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) is a negative A plate (the optical retardation film
can be a negative A plate paragraph [0098]), the third optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one
optical retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], third anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) is a layer
formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (the optical retardation film is a twisted or
cholesteric film paragraph [0094]), and the fourth optically anisotropic layer (there is at least one optical
retardation film 18 paragraph [0052], fourth anisotropic layer taught above by Takahashi) is a positive C
plate (the optical retardation film is a positive C plate paragraph [0100]).
Takahashi discloses the claimed invention except the use of a negative c plate, a positive c plate,
a negative a plate and a twist aligned layer for the anisotropic layers. Verall shows that the retardation
films are an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because the retardation films and optical
anisotropic layers were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the retardation films
instead of the anisotropic layers, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See M PEP
§2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).

Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Taguchi et al. (US 20150192715 A1).
Regarding claim 25, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the laminated film comprises no liquid crystal cell.
However Taguchi discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the laminated film (heat ray cutting film
of fig. 2 paragraph [0056] is laminated paragraph [0050]) comprises no liquid crystal cell (the heat ray
cutting film comprises infrared ray absorbing layer 20, light reflecting layers 14a, 14b, 16a and 16b and
substrate 12 fig. 2, the light reflecting layers are optically anisotropic paragraph [0050].
Takahashi discloses the claimed invention except that a liquid crystal cell is comprised in the
laminated film. Taguchi shows that a laminated film without a liquid crystal cell is an equivalent
structure in the art. Therefore, because these laminated films were art-recognized equivalents before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
It is obvious to substitute a laminated film without a liquid crystal cell instead of one with a liquid crystal cell, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).
Regarding claim 27, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the third optically anisotropic layer and the fourth optically anisotropic layer are in direct contact with each other.

However Taguchi discloses in at least figure 2, wherein the third optically anisotropic layer (light reflecting layer 14b fig. 2 obtained by fixing cholesteric liquid crystalline phases paragraph [0063]) and the fourth optically anisotropic layer (light reflecting layer 14a fig. 2 obtained by fixing cholesteric liquid crystalline phases paragraph [0063]) are in direct contact with each other (the light reflecting layers 14a and 14b are in direct contact fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to have the third and fourth layers in direct contact as taught by Taguchi in the laminated film of Takahashi. Having two layers each preferably has a reflection center wavelength substantially equal to that of the light reflecting layer (paragraph [0056]).

Claims 28-29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Yonemoto (WO 2021145446 A1).
Regarding claim 28, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer, the second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, and the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound having reverse wavelength dispersibility.
However Yonemoto discloses in at least figure 3, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 13 fig. 3), the second optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 12 fig. 3), the third optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 11 fig. 3), or the fourth optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 14 fig. 3) is a layer formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound (the first optical anisotropic layer is preferably a film in which liquid crystal compounds are fixed in an oriented state paragraph [0086] of translation) having reverse wavelength dispersibility (as for the liquid crystal compound, it is also preferable to use a liquid crystal compound that exhibits inverse dispersion wavelength dispersion paragraph [0086] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a layer with inverse wavelength dispersion as taught by Yonemoto in the laminated film of Takahashi. It is preferable for the optical compensation layer to
have inverse dispersion wavelength dispersion, as this can reduce color changes in the main
image (paragraph [0082] of translation).
Regarding claim 29, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 28.
Takahashi does not explicitly disclose, wherein the layer formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound having reverse wavelength dispersibility is a positive A plate,
at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer, the second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a positive C plate.
However Yonemoto discloses in at least figure 3, wherein the layer formed by fixing an aligned liquid crystal compound (the first optical anisotropic layer is preferably a film in which liquid crystal compounds are fixed in an oriented state paragraph [0086] of translation) having reverse wavelength dispersibility (as for the liquid crystal compound, it is also preferable to use a liquid crystal compound that exhibits inverse dispersion wavelength dispersion paragraph [0086] of translation) is a positive A plate (the first optical anisotropy layer is preferably a positive A plate paragraph [0087] of translation),
at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 13 fig. 3), the second optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 12 fig. 3), the third optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 11 fig. 3), or the fourth optically anisotropic layer (optical anisotropy layer 14 fig. 3) is a positive C plate (the second optical anisotropy layer is preferably a positive C plate paragraph [0089] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a positive a plate with inverse wavelength dispersion as taught by Yonemoto in the laminated film of Takahashi. It is preferable for the optical compensation layer to have inverse dispersion wavelength dispersion, as this can reduce color changes in the main
image (paragraph [0082] of translation).

Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (US 20110063547 A1) in view of Sugiyama et al. (US 20170003422 A1), Onoe (JP 2008274043 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Uesaka (WO 2007094102 A1).
Regarding claim 30, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the
limitations of claim 1.
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer, the second optically anisotropic layer, the third optically anisotropic layer, or the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned,
a twisted angle of the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned is in a range of 10° to 180°, and
a value of a product Δnd of a refractive index anisotropy Δn of the layer formed by fixing the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d of the layer formed by fixing the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned is 40 to 280 nm.
However Uesaka discloses in at least figure 5, wherein at least one of the first optically anisotropic layer (fourth optical anisotropy layer 13 fig. 5), the second optically anisotropic layer (fifth optical anisotropy layer 12 fig. 5), the third optically anisotropic layer (second optical anisotropy layer 2 fig. 5), or the fourth optically anisotropic layer (first optical anisotropy layer 1 fig. 5) is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (a first optically anisotropic layer made of a liquid crystal film with a nematic hybrid orientation structure fixed to it paragraph [0039] of translation),
a twisted angle of the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned is in a range of 10° to 180° (wherein the first optical anisotropy layer is at least composed of a liquid crystal film on which a nematic hybrid orientation structure is immobilized, having an average tilt angle of liquid crystal molecules of 36° to 45° paragraph [0023] of translation), and
a value of a product Δnd of a refractive index anisotropy Δn (The Δnd of the liquid crystal material layer 1A, in which a hybrid nematic orientation structure was immobilized paragraph [0092] of translation) of the layer formed by fixing the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (wherein the first optical anisotropy layer is at least composed of a liquid crystal film on which a nematic hybrid orientation structure is immobilized, having an average tilt angle of liquid crystal molecules of 36° to 45° paragraph [0023] of translation 40° paragraph [0092] of translation) at a wavelength of 550 nm (wavelength of 550 nm paragraph [0023] of translation) and a thickness d (an actual film thickness of 0.86/m was obtained on a polyimide film as the first optical anisotropy layer paragraph [0092] of translation) of the layer formed by fixing the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (wherein the first optical anisotropy layer is at least composed of a liquid crystal film on which a nematic hybrid orientation structure is immobilized, having an average tilt angle of liquid crystal molecules of 36° to 45° paragraph [0023] of translation) is 40 to 280 nm (Δnd = 105 nm paragraph [0092] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the
claimed invention to use a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned as taught by Uesaka in the laminated film of Takahashi. It can be seen that the viewing angle characteristics are significantly improved by increasing the average tilt angle of the first optical anisotropy layer from 28 degrees to 40 degrees (paragraph [0123] of translation).

Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 31 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 31 would be allowable, Regarding claim 31, The combination of Takahashi, Sugiyama and Onoe discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Uesaka discloses in at least figure 5, the third optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (a first optically anisotropic layer made of a liquid crystal film with a nematic hybrid orientation structure fixed to it paragraph [0039] of translation),
a twisted angle of the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned is in a range of 10° to 180° (wherein the first optical anisotropy layer is at least composed of a liquid crystal film on which a nematic hybrid orientation structure is immobilized, having an average tilt angle of liquid crystal molecules of 36° to 45° paragraph [0023] of translation), and
a value of a product Δnd of a refractive index anisotropy Δn (The Δnd of the liquid crystal material layer 1A, in which a hybrid nematic orientation structure was immobilized paragraph [0092] of translation) of the layer formed by fixing the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (wherein the first optical anisotropy layer is at least composed of a liquid crystal film on which a nematic hybrid orientation structure is immobilized, having an average tilt angle of liquid crystal molecules of 36° to 45° paragraph [0023] of translation 40° paragraph [0092] of translation) at a wavelength of 550 nm (wavelength of 550 nm paragraph [0023] of translation) and a thickness d (an actual film thickness of 0.86/m was obtained on a polyimide film as the first optical anisotropy layer paragraph [0092] of translation) of the layer formed by fixing the liquid crystal compound twist-aligned (wherein the first optical anisotropy layer is at least composed of a liquid crystal film on which a nematic hybrid orientation structure is immobilized, having an average tilt angle of liquid crystal molecules of 36° to 45° paragraph [0023] of translation) is 40 to 280 nm (Δnd = 105 nm paragraph [0092] of translation).
Takahashi does not disclose, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer is a negative C plate, the second optically anisotropic layer is a negative A plate, the third optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned, and the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a positive C plate,
an in-plane retardation of the negative C plate at a wavelength of 550 nm is 0 to 10 nm,
a thickness direction retardation of the negative C plate at a wavelength of 550 nm is 10 to 120 nm,
an in-plane retardation of the negative A plate at a wavelength of 550 nm is 70 to 200 nm.
There is no prior art in the record that teaches, wherein the first optically anisotropic layer is a negative C plate, the second optically anisotropic layer is a negative A plate, the third optically anisotropic layer is a layer formed by fixing a liquid crystal compound twist-aligned, and the fourth optically anisotropic layer is a positive C plate. Therefore the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. (US 20200212366 A1) discloses an optical filter with anisotropic retardation films.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.

/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872

Prosecution Timeline

• Dec 05, 2022: Application Filed
• May 07, 2025: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
• Aug 07, 2025: Response Filed
• Nov 07, 2025: Final Rejection mailed — §103
• Feb 03, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Mar 03, 2026: Request for Continued Examination
• Mar 11, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Mar 19, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103
• Jun 03, 2026: Response Filed
• Sep 01, 2026: Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)