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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered. Claims 11-17 stand withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 18, and withdrawn claim 11 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-10 and 18-20 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 that Walker fails to teach “ARC is configured to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Walker only discloses the antireflective film has high and low refractive index layers and fails to teach the “ARC is configured to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer.” Although Walker does not explicitly state the ARC is configured to the reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer, Walker does teach “preferred antireflective films result in the film having the same or greater (e.g. polarized) transmission” ([0006]). Furthermore, in the example polarizing films with the antireflective film shown in the second table on page 16, both the reflective polarizers with one or two antireflective films show a greater transmission of polarized light ([0165]). Since increases in transmission generally result in a reduction of reflectance, these would indicate that Walker does disclose a that the antireflective film reduces a reflectance along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer. To further emphasize this, Oya teaches that the low reflectance layer (also referred to as an anti-reflection layer) should have a low surface reflectance of “preferably 2% or less, more preferably 1% or less” (Column 12 lines 30-31) and that a reflectance higher than 3% causes the “surface anti-reflection effect on the transmission axis side… becomes unsatisfactory and a sufficient brightness increasing effect is not obtained” (Column 12 lines 26-30). Taken together, Walker with the additional teachings of Oya teach “ARC is configured to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer.” Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintains the 103 rejection of claims 1 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0285778 – hereinafter referred to as “Walker”) in view of Weber et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,926,952 – hereinafter referred to as “Weber”) and in further view of Oya et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,339,707 – hereinafter referred to as “Oya”).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a multilayer polymer thin film (Figure 1 microstructured optical film 30) comprising:
a reflective polarizer (RP) ([0031] reflective polarizing optical film) comprising alternating first and second layers ([0038] two distinct polymer materials with alternating layers ABAB), wherein the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer ([0038] isotropic refractive index in first polymer layer) thin film having in-plane refractive indices nx(1) and ny(1) (first polymer layer will inherently have in-plane refractive indices) and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film ([0038] second polymer has a high birefringence when stretched) having in-plane refractive indices nx(2) and ny(2) (second polymer has birefringence between two orthogonal directions in the plane of the film); and
an anti-reflective coating (ARC) ([0005] antireflective film) located directly over the reflective polarizer ([0005] antireflective film coupled to polarizing optical film), the anti- reflective coating comprising alternating third and fourth layers (claim 18 antireflective film comprises two or more alternating layers of high and low refractive index), and the fourth layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film ([0049] low refractive index layer has single a refractive index ranging from 1.35 to 1.5) having in-plane refractive indices nx(4) and ny(4) (low refractive index layer will inherently have in-plane refractive indices).
Walker fails to teach the third layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices nx(3) and ny(3). However, Weber teaches an anti-reflective coating (Figure 2a) where the third layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film (Column 8 lines 4-21, lines 36-44 birefringent (anisotropic) polymer PEN used which is anisotropic after stretching, Claim 6) having in-plane refractive indices nx(3) and ny(3) (PEN layer will inherently have in-plane refractive indices nx(3) and ny(3)). Weber further teaches using an anti-reflective coating with an birefringent polymer thin film to selectively reduce reflection of certain polarizations of light (Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to modify the ARC taught by Walker by using an anisotropic polymer thin film layer as taught by Weber in order to produce a polarized ARC that selectively reduces reflection of certain polarizations of light (Weber Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21).
Walker further teaches “preferred antireflective films result in the film having the same or greater (e.g. polarized) transmission” ([0006]; greater transmission would typically indicate greater reflectance) but fails to explicitly teach the ARC is configured to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer. However, Oya teaches a multilayer polymer film (Col. 2 line 56) with a anti-reflection layer that reduces reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer (Column 12 lines 20-31 to achieve anti-reflection effect on the transmission axis of the multi-layer film surface reflectance is preferably 2% or less). Oya further teaches that having a surface reflectance higher than 3% results fails to have a sufficient brightness increasing effect (Column 12 lines 27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the antireflective coating taught by Walker and Weber to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer as taught by Oya in achieve a sufficient brightness increasing effect (Oya Column 12 lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 2, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker further teaches a film that transmits light of one polarization state (pass direction) and reflects light with an orthogonal polarization state (block direction). Walker fails to explicitly teach an average reflection of less than approximately 1% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a pass direction, and an average reflection of at least approximately 90% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a block direction. However, Oya teaches a multilayer polymer film (Col. 2 line 56) with an average reflection of less than approximately 1% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a pass direction (Figure 1 S polarization component, Col. 8 lines 3-12 average reflectance for a polarization component orthogonal to the stretch direction (direction orthogonal to stretch direction would be pass direction) is preferably less than 1% at a wavelength of 400-800 nm), and an average reflection of at least approximately 90% over a range of 400 nm to 700 nm along a block direction (Figure 1 P polarization component, Col. 8 lines 3-12 average reflectance for a polarization component parallel to the stretch direction (direction parallel to stretch direction would be block direction) is 90% or more at a wavelength of 400-800 nm). Oya teaches these ranges of reflection in the block and pass direction are beneficial to prevent a reduction in brightness (Col. 2 lines 23-25) and color shift (Col. 8 lines 27-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the multilayer polymer film taught by Walker such that light is predominately transmitted in a pass direction and reflected in a block direction as taught by Oya in order to prevent a reduction in brightness (Oya Col. 2 lines 23-25) and color shift (Oya Col. 8 lines 27-40).
Regarding claim 5, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker further teaches the second layers comprise a moiety selected from the group consisting of polyethylene naphthalate ([0039] second polymer can be polyethylene naphthalate), polyethylene terephthalate ([0039] second polymer can be polyethylene terephthalate), polybutylene naphthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, polyoxymethylene, and derivatives thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker fails to teach a sacrificial layer disposed directly over at least one of the reflective polarizer and the anti-reflective coating. However, Weber teaches a sacrificial layer disposed directly over at least one of the reflective polarizer and the anti-reflective coating (Figure 1B skin layer 110 on top of anti-reflective layer 114, Column 8 lines 45-58). Walker further teaches adding a skin layer to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Column 8 lines 45-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer taught by Walker with the sacrificial skin layer taught by Weber in order to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Weber Column 8 lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 9, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Walker fails to teach the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety having a surface energy of less than approximately 38 dyne/cm. However, Weber teaches the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety having a surface energy of less than approximately 38 dyne/cm (Column 8 lines 59-61 suitable polymers for skin layers include polypropylene and polyethylene which inherently have surface energies of 29 and 31 dynes/cm, respectively (Categorizing Surface Energy, 3m, www.3m.com/3M/en_US/bonding-and-assembly-us/resources/science-of-adhesion/categorizing-surface-energy/)). Weber further teaches adding a skin layer to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Column 8 lines 45-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya with the sacrificial skin layer with a surface energy of less than 38 dyne/cm as taught by Weber in order to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Weber Column 8 lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 10, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Walker fails to teach the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and a fluorinated polymer. However, Weber teaches the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and a fluorinated polymer (Column 8 lines 59-61 suitable polymers for skin layers include polypropylene and polyethylene). Weber further teaches adding a skin layer to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Column 8 lines 45-65).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya with the sacrificial skin layer composed of polypropylene or polyethylene as taught by Weber in order to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Weber Column 8 lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 18, Walker teaches a multilayer polymer thin film (Figure 1 microstructured optical film 30) comprising:
a reflective polarizer (RP) ([0031] reflective polarizing optical film) comprising alternating first and second layers ([0038] two distinct polymer materials with alternating layers ABAB), wherein the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film ([0038] isotropic refractive index in first polymer layer) and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film ([0038] second polymer has a high birefringence when stretched); and
an anti-reflective coating (ARC) ([0005] antireflective film) located directly over the reflective polarizer ([0005] antireflective film coupled to polarizing optical film), the anti- reflective coating comprising alternating third and fourth layers (claim 18 antireflective film comprises two or more alternating layers of high and low refractive index), and the fourth layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film ([0049] low refractive index layer has single a refractive index ranging from 1.35 to 1.5), wherein an in-plane refractive index nx(1) of the first layers is less than an in-plane refractive index nx(2) of the second layers ([0037] difference in nx between layers is at least 0.05, [0038] second polymer has a high birefringence when stretched ranging from 0.05 to 0.2 and thus nx(2) will be higher than nx(1)), and an in-plane refractive index nx(3) of the third layers ([0058] high refractive index layer has a single refractive index of at least 1.6) is greater than an in-plane refractive index nx(4) of the fourth layers ([0049] low refractive index layer has single a refractive index ranging from 1.35 to 1.5).
Walker fails to teach the third layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film. However, Weber teaches an anti-reflective coating (Figure 2a) where the third layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film (Column 8 lines 4-21, lines 36-44 birefringent (anisotropic) polymer PEN used which is anisotropic after stretching, Claim 6). Weber further teaches using an anti-reflective coating with an birefringent polymer thin film to selectively reduce reflection of certain polarizations of light (Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21). Walker also teaches the third layer is the polymer PEN which has an in-plane refractive index greater than the fourth layer taught by Walker (Weber Column 8 lines 14-21 PEN has a refractive index ~1.74). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to modify the ARC taught by Walker by using an anisotropic polymer thin film layer as taught by Weber in order to produce a polarized ARC that selectively reduces reflection of certain polarizations of light (Weber Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21).
Walker further teaches “preferred antireflective films result in the film having the same or greater (e.g. polarized) transmission” ([0006]; greater transmission would typically indicate greater reflectance) but fails to explicitly teach the ARC is configured to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer. However, Oya teaches a multilayer polymer film (Col. 2 line 56) with a anti-reflection layer that reduces reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer (Column 12 lines 20-31 to achieve anti-reflection effect on the transmission axis of the multi-layer film surface reflectance is preferably 2% or less). Oya further teaches that having a surface reflectance higher than 3% results fails to have a sufficient brightness increasing effect (Column 12 lines 27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the antireflective coating taught by Walker and Weber to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer as taught by Oya in achieve a sufficient brightness increasing effect (Oya Column 12 lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 19, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 18. Walker fails to teach a sacrificial layer disposed directly over at least one of the reflective polarizer and the anti-reflective coating. However, Weber teaches a sacrificial layer disposed directly over at least one of the reflective polarizer and the anti-reflective coating (Figure 1B skin layer 110 on top of anti-reflective layer 114, Column 8 lines 45-58). Walker further teaches adding a skin layer to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Column 8 lines 45-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer taught by Walker with the sacrificial skin layer taught by Weber in order to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Weber Column 8 lines 45-65).
Regarding claim 20, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 19. Walker fails to teach the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polydimethylsiloxane, polypropylene, polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyoxymethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl alcohol, and derivatives thereof. However, Weber teaches the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, polyvinylidene fluoride, polydimethylsiloxane, polypropylene, polyethylene, ethylene-vinyl acetate, polyoxymethylene, polystyrene, polyvinyl alcohol, and derivatives thereof (Column 8 lines 59-61 suitable polymers for skin layers include polypropylene and polyethylene). Weber further teaches adding a skin layer to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Column 8 lines 45-65).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya with the sacrificial skin layer composed of polypropylene or polyethylene as taught by Weber in order to absorb shear forces from extrusion and prevent structural damage from extrusion and stretching (Weber Column 8 lines 45-65).
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0285778) in view of Weber (U.S. Patent No. 6,926,952) and Oya (U.S. Patent No. 8,339,707) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ouderkirk et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 – hereinafter referred to as “Ouderkirk”).
Regarding claim 3, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker further teaches nx(2)-ny(2) > 0.1 ([0038] second polymer has a high birefringence of preferably at least 0.2). Walker also teaches the first polymer is a copolymer or blend based upon naphthalene dicarboxylic acid (coPEN) and the second polymer is polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) ([0039]). Walker, Weber, and Oya fail to explicitly teach nx(1) < 1.8, ny(1) < 1.8, nx(1)-ny(1) < 0.1, and nx(2) > 1.8. However Ouderkirk teaches a multilayer polymer film (Figure 4) with nx(1) < 1.8 (Col. 22 lines 4-7 coPEN is a polymer based on naphthalene dicarboxylic acid, Col. 23 lines 26-32, coPEN inherently remains isotropic after stretching with a refractive index of 1.64), ny(1) < 1.8 (Col. 23 lines 26-32, coPEN inherently remains isotropic after stretching with a refractive index of 1.64,), nx(1)-ny(1) < 0.1 (Col. 23 lines 26-32, coPEN inherently remains isotropic after stretching thus nx(1)-ny(1) = 0), and nx(2) > 1.8 (Col. 23 lines 26-32, after stretching PEN has a refractive index of 1.88 along the orientated axis). Ouderkirk also teaches PEN has refractive index of 1.64 (ny(2)) along the transverse axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stretch the multilayer polymer film taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya to achieve an nx(2) = 1.88 with an ny(2) = 1.64 since Walker teaches the second polymer has a high birefringence (nx(2)-ny(2)) of at least 0.2 to achieve high reflectivity ([0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 4, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker further teaches nx(2)- ny(2) > 0.2 ([0038] second polymer has a high birefringence of preferably at least 0.2). Walker also teaches the second polymer is PEN. Walker, Weber, and Oya fail to explicitly teach nx(2) > 1.85. However, Ouderkirk teaches a multilayer polymer film (Figure 4) with nx(2) > 1.85 (Col. 23 lines 26-32, after stretching PEN has a refractive index of 1.88 along the orientated axis). Ouderkirk also teaches PEN has refractive index of 1.64 (ny(2)) along the transverse axis. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stretch the multilayer polymer film taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya to achieve an nx(2) = 1.88 with an ny(2) = 1.64 since Walker teaches the second polymer has a high birefringence (nx(2)-ny(2)) of at least 0.2 to achieve high reflectivity ([0037]-[0038]).
Regarding claim 6, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker further teaches nx(4) < 1.6, ny(4) < 1.6 ([0049] low refractive index layer has single a refractive index ranging from 1.35 to 1.5), and
nx(4)-ny(4) < 0.1 ([0049] low refractive index layer has a single refractive index so nx(4)-ny(4) = 0).
Walker fails to teach nx(3) > 1.6 and ny(3) > 1.6. However Weber teaches the third polymer thin film layer is PEN (Column 8 lines 14-21) but fails to explicitly teach nx(3) and ny(3) of PEN after stretching. However, Ouderkirk teaches a multilayer polymer film (Figure 4) using PEN with nx(3) > 1.6 (Col. 23 lines 26-32 refractive index of PEN along transverse axis is 1.64) and ny(3) > 1.6 (Col. 23 lines 26-32, after stretching PEN has a refractive index of 1.88 along the orientated axis). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer thin film taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya by stretching the anti-reflective layer in the manner taught by Ouderkirk to achieve an anisotropic layer to produce a polarized ARC that selectively reduces reflection of certain polarizations of light (Weber Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21).
Regarding claim 7, Walker, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Walker further teaches nx(4) < 1.6 ([0049] low refractive index layer has a single refractive index ranging from 1.35 to 1.5),
ny(4) < 1.6 ([0049] low refractive index layer has a single refractive index ranging from 1.35 to 1.5), and
nx(4)-ny(4) < 0.1 (low refractive index layer has a single refractive index so nx(4)-ny(4) = 0).
Walker fails to teach ny(3) > 1.6 and ny(3) > ny(2). However, Weber teaches the third polymer thin film layer is PEN (Column 8 lines 14-21) but fails to explicitly teach ny(3) of PEN after stretching. However, Ouderkirk teaches a multilayer polymer film (Figure 4) using PEN with ny(3) > 1.6 (Col. 23 lines 26-32, after stretching PEN has a refractive index of 1.88 along the orientated axis). Ouderkirk also teaches PEN has refractive index of ny(2) = 1.64 (Col. 23 lines 26-32 refractive index of PEN along transverse axis is 1.64) along the transverse axis thus ny(3) > ny(2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the multilayer polymer thin film taught by Walker, Weber, and Oya by stretching the anti-reflective layer in the manner taught by Ouderkirk to achieve an anisotropic layer to produce a polarized ARC that selectively reduces reflection of certain polarizations of light (Weber Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21).
Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neavin et al. (European Patent EP 2147771 B1 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Neavin”) in view of Weber (U.S. Patent No. 6,926,952) and in further view of Oya (U.S. Patent No. 8,339,707).
Regarding claim 1, Neavin teaches a multilayer polymer thin film ([0001]) comprising:
a reflective polarizer (RP) ([0026] polarizing film) comprising alternating ([0070] alternating layers ABABAB) first and second layers ([0026] first and second polymers), wherein the first layers each comprise an isotropic polymer ([0106] second material is essentially isotropic) thin film having in-plane refractive indices nx(1) and ny(1) ([0026] second polymer has an in-plane refractive indices orthogonal to each other) and the second layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer ([0026] first polymer is birefringent such that the refractive index increases in the direction of stretching) thin film having in-plane refractive indices nx(2) and ny(2) ([0026] first polymer has an in-plane refractive indices orthogonal to each other); and
an anti-reflective coating (ARC) ([0166] anti-reflective coating) located directly over the reflective polarizer ([0166] anti-reflective coating in contact with film), the anti- reflective coating comprising alternating third and fourth layers ([0166] two or more layer anti-reflective stack), and the fourth layers each comprise an isotropic polymer thin film ([0166] second polymer in anti-reflective stack) having in-plane refractive indices nx(4) and ny(4) (second polymer in anti-reflective stack with inherently have in-plane refractive indices).
Neavin fails to teach the third layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film having in-plane refractive indices nx(3) and ny(3). However, Weber teaches an anti-reflective coating (Figure 2a) where the third layers each comprise an anisotropic polymer thin film (Column 8 lines 4-21, lines 36-44 birefringent (anisotropic) polymer PEN used which is anisotropic after stretching, Claim 6) having in-plane refractive indices nx(3) and ny(3) (PEN layer will inherently have in-plane refractive indices nx(3) and ny(3)). Weber further teaches using an anti-reflective coating with an birefringent polymer thin film to selectively reduce reflection of certain polarizations of light (Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to modify the ARC taught by Neavin by using an anisotropic polymer thin film layer as taught by Weber in order to produce a polarized ARC that selectively reduces reflection of certain polarizations of light (Weber Figure 3, Column 8 lines 14-21).
Neavin and Weber fail to teach the ARC is configured to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer. However, Oya teaches a multilayer polymer film (Col. 2 line 56) with an anti-reflection layer that reduces reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer (Column 12 lines 20-31 to achieve anti-reflection effect on the transmission axis of the multi-layer film surface reflectance is preferably 2% or less). Oya further teaches that having a surface reflectance higher than 3% results fails to have a sufficient brightness increasing effect (Column 12 lines 27-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention configure the antireflective coating taught by Neavin and Weber to reduce a reflectance of light along a transmissive axis of the reflective polarizer as taught by Oya in achieve a sufficient brightness increasing effect (Oya Column 12 lines 27-30).
Regarding claim 5, Neavin, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Neavin further teaches the second layers comprise a moiety selected from the group consisting of polyethylene naphthalate ([0033] polyethylene 2,6-naphthalate (PEN)), polyethylene terephthalate ([0039]), polybutylene naphthalate ([0034), polybutylene terephthalate, polyoxymethylene, and derivatives thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Neavin, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Neavin further teaches a sacrificial layer disposed directly over at least one of the reflective polarizer and the anti-reflective coating ([0147] skin layer disposed on surface of film to protect integrity of optical layers).
Regarding claim 9, Neavin, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Neavin further teaches the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety having a surface energy of less than approximately 38 dyne/cm ([0154] suitable polymers for skin layers include polypropylene and polyethylene which inherently have surface energies of 29 and 31 dynes/cm, respectively (3M, Categorizing Surface Energy, www.3m.com/3M/en_US/bonding-and-assembly-us/resources/science-of-adhesion/categorizing-surface-energy/)).
Regarding claim 10, Neavin, Weber, and Oya teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Neavin further teaches the sacrificial layer comprises a moiety selected from the group consisting of polyethylene, polypropylene, and a fluorinated polymer ([0154] suitable polymers for skin layers include polypropylene and polyethylene).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights