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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 01/23/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended and claim 26 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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).
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. It is possible to further improve transmittance by laminating, for example, a low refractive index anti-reflective coating, a multilayer anti-reflective coating utilizing optical interference, or a film with anti-glare treatment onto the surface of the film (paragraph [0058] of translation).
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 anti-reflective coating, a multilayer anti-reflective coating utilizing optical interference, or a film with anti-glare 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 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.
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 X1 to X3,
Requirement X1: 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 X1 to X3,
Requirement X1: 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 Al).
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 Y1, Y2, or Y3,
Requirement Y1: 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 personal 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 personal 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 personal 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 Al) 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 Y1, Y2, orY3,
Requirement Y1: 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 (CCPA
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 Al) 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 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 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 Vera II 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. VeraII 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 VeraII 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. Vera II 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 MPEP
§2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).
Claim 25 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 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
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tomonaga et al. (US 20100309414 A1) discloses a liquid crystal panel and display with a retardation film that has a transmittance over 90% at 590nm wavelength.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. 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