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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1 and 13 are amended in the current application.
Claim 2 is canceled in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments filed August 26, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action.
The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) set forth in the previous office action is withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
Applicant argues that Hayasaki, Higuchi, Ogasawara, or a combination thereof does not teach Expression (2) of amended claim 1.
This is not persuasive for the following reasons. The rejections under 35 USC 102 in view of Higuchi et al. (JP 2005-091900 A1) set forth in the previous office action are withdrawn due to the present claim amendments.
The rejections under 35 USC 103 set forth in the previous office action have been updated to reflect the present claim amendments. Hayasaki in view of Higuchi (modified Hayasaki) is further combined with Ogasawara, where Ogasawara provides a broader teaching than previously applied. Ogasawara teaches an optical laminate comprising an optical retardation film that can be formed of polyvinyl acetal resin having a photo-elastic coefficient of 2x10-12 m2/N or more (0.02x10-10 or more) (Ogasawara, Abstract, [0043]-[0045], [0080]-[0087]). Ogasawara teaches a photo-elastic coefficient within the aforementioned range achieves bendability, exhibits sufficient retardation even at small film thicknesses, and suppresses changes in retardation under bending stresses (Ogasawara, [0085]). Ogasawara’s photo-elastic coefficient range encompasses the claimed range of 1.5x10-10 to 5.0x10-9 Pa-1, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05). Since modified Hayasaki and Ogasawara both disclose optical laminates comprising a polyvinyl acetal resin film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have configured modified Hayasaki’s second intermediate film according to Ogasawara’s guidance to have a photo-elastic coefficient that renders obvious the claimed range to yield an optical laminate that achieves bendability, exhibits sufficient retardation even at small film thicknesses, and suppresses changes in retardation under bending stresses with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (Ogasawara, [0085]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayasaki et al. (WO 2017/175852 A1, herein US 2019/0030856 A1 utilized as English language equivalent), in view of Higuchi et al. (JP 2005-091900 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations), and in view of Ogasawara et al. (US2020/0144553 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hayasaki teaches an optical laminate for a head-up display comprising at least one intermediate film on a first quarter wave plate (i.e., an optical functional layer), where at least one intermediate film is a polyvinyl butyral resin film (i.e., a polyvinyl acetal film) (Hayasaki, Abstract, [0002]-[0003], [0008], [0022]-[0029], [0115]-[0125], [0131], Figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
402
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hayasaki – Figure 8
Hayasaki remains silent regarding the polyvinyl butyral resin film (polyvinyl acetal film) having a photo-elastic coefficient of less than or equal to the absolute value of 4.0x10-11 Pa-1.
Higuchi teaches an optical laminate comprising a low photo-elastic coefficient polyvinyl acetal resin film having photo-elastic coefficient of 10x10-12 m2/N (Pa-1) or less (Higuchi, Pgs 1-2). Higuchi’s photo-elastic coefficient of 10x10-12 m2/N (1.0x10-11 Pa-1) or less falls within the claimed range of less than or equal to 4.0x10-11 Pa-1, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03). Higuchi teaches the low photo-elastic coefficient polyvinyl acetal resin film is a polyvinyl butyral resin layer (Higuchi, Pg 2).
Since Hayasaki and Higuchi both disclose optical laminates comprising a polyvinyl acetal resin film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Higuchi’s polyvinyl acetal resin film as at least one of Hayasaki’s intermediate films (i.e., a first intermediate film) to yield an optical laminate that exhibits superior transparency, low photo-elastic coefficient, superior durability, and suitable light leakage as taught by Higuchi (Higuchi, Pgs 1, 3).
Modified Hayasaki teaches the first intermediate film has a photo-elastic coefficient of 1.0x10-11 Pa-1 (Higuchi, Pgs 1-2) and the optical laminate 22 comprises a second intermediate film 21, where the second intermediate film is a polyvinyl butyral resin film (i.e., a polyvinyl acetal film) (Hayasaki, [0115]-[0131], Fig 8).
Modified Hayasaki remains silent regarding the photo-elastic coefficient of the second intermediate film.
Ogasawara, however, teaches an optical laminate comprising an optical retardation film that can be formed of polyvinyl acetal resin having a photo-elastic coefficient of 2x10-12 m2/N or more (0.02x10-10 or more) (Ogasawara, Abstract, [0043]-[0045], [0080]-[0087]). Ogasawara teaches a photo-elastic coefficient within the aforementioned range achieves bendability, exhibits sufficient retardation even at small film thicknesses, and suppresses changes in retardation under bending stresses (Ogasawara, [0085]). Ogasawara’s photo-elastic coefficient range encompasses the claimed range of 1.5x10-10 to 5.0x10-9 Pa-1, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Since modified Hayasaki and Ogasawara both disclose optical laminates comprising a polyvinyl acetal resin film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured modified Hayasaki’s second intermediate film according to Ogasawara’s guidance to have a photo-elastic coefficient that renders obvious the claimed range to yield an optical laminate that achieves bendability, exhibits sufficient retardation even at small film thicknesses, and suppresses changes in retardation under bending stresses as taught by Ogasawara (Ogasawara, [0085]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Hayasaki teaches an optical laminate comprising as discussed above for claims 1 and 2. Modified Hayasaki teaches the first intermediate film has a photo-elastic coefficient Pe1 of 1.0x10-11 Pa-1 or less (Higuchi, Pgs 1-2). Modified Hayasaki teaches the second intermediate film has a photo-elastic coefficient Pe2 of 2x10-12 m2/N or more (0.2x10-11 or more) (Ogasawara, [0085]). This yields a ratio of Pe2/Pe1 of (0.2x10-11 Pa-1 or more/1.0x10-11 Pa-1 or less), 0.2 or more. Modified Hayasaki’s ratio encompasses the claimed range of 10 to 1000, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Hayasaki teaches the low photo-elastic coefficient polyvinyl acetal resin film has a thickness of 40 µm (Hayasaki, [0117]-[0118]; Higuchi, Pg 3). Modified Hayasaki’s thickness falls within the claimed range of 10-800 µm, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Hayasaki teaches the low photo-elastic coefficient polyvinyl acetal resin film is a polyvinyl butyral resin layer (Hayasaki, [0117]-[0118]; Higuchi, Pg 2).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, modified Hayasaki teaches the optical laminate comprises the optical functional layer is a phase difference layer that can be a quarter wave plate or half wave plate (Hayaski, [0047]-[0048], [0079]-[0085], Fig 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
304
465
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hayasaki – Figure 1
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hayasaki teaches the optical laminate comprises the optical functional layer is a phase difference layer that can be a quarter wave plate or half wave plate, where the wave plate includes a polymerizable liquid crystal layer that controls a polarization axis (Hayaski, [0079]-[0085], Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Hayasaki teaches the optical laminate comprises the optical functional layer is a phase difference layer that can be a quarter wave plate or half wave plate, where the wave plate includes a polymerizable liquid crystal layer that controls a polarization axis (Hayaski, [0079]-[0085], Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Hayasaki teaches a functional glass laminate for a head-up display comprising the optical laminate as discussed above for claim 1 and two glass plates (Hayasaki, [0115]-[0131], Fig 9).
PNG
media_image3.png
271
505
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hayasaki – Figure 9
Regarding Claim 11, modified Hayasaki teaches a head-up display system comprising the optical laminate as discussed above for claim 1 (Hayasaki, [0131]-[0132], Fig 10).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Hayasaki teaches a head-up display system comprising the functional glass laminate as discussed above for claim 10 (Hayasaki, [0126]-[0132], Fig 10).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, modified Hayasaki teaches the head-up display system comprising the functional glass laminate as discussed above for claim 12, where an incidence angle at which light emitted from a display image projection unit comes into the functional glass in a range of α-10o to α+10o with a Brewster angle defined as α (Hayasaki, [0022]-[0027], [0126]-[0136]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782