DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/29/26 has been entered.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 2018/0159085, “Yoshida”) in view of Sakai et al. (US 2019/0278010, “Sakai”).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Yoshida teaches an organic electroluminescent device ([0009]) comprising an optical film comprising an anisotropic laminate having a first anisotropic layer ([0100]) a second anisotropic layer ([0100]) and a third anisotropic layer directly laminated on one another ([0100], and see Fig. 2, reproduced below). Yoshida teaches that the layers may be fixed via photo-crosslinking and may be aligned via photo alignment ([0066] - [0076] describing a typical process for producing an anisotropic film with one or more liquid crystalline compounds). Here, because the anisotropic layers may be made of liquid crystalline compounds, the surfaces thereof would also be made of the liquid crystalline compounds.
PNG
media_image1.png
234
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While Yoshida teaches the inclusion of photo-active compounds in order to polymerize the layers ([0066]) Yoshida does not specifically teach photoalignment properties, however compounds providing photo-alignment properties are well known in the prior art. In the same field of endeavor of organic electroluminescent displays and liquid crystalline layers for use therein (e.g., [0060], [0086]), Sakai teaches that the inclusion of photo-reactive groups or polymers permits a liquid crystalline compound to be oriented via irradiation ([0060]). Sakai teaches that such a layer may itself be used as an alignment layer for subsequent retardation layers and thus the thickness of the device may be reduced and the production process simplified ([0060], thus motivating the placement of a retardation film directly on the photoreactive anisotropic layer). Therefore it would have been obvious to have included such a compound in the liquid crystalline compounds described by Yoshida as a specific example of a compound providing polymerization via light and because they may helpfully provide orientation to the liquid crystalline layer and obviate the need for any additional alignment layers ([0060]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yoshida teaches that the liquid crystalline compounds may be photo-reactive ([0073]) but fails to specifically teach that the photo-alignment group dimerizes or isomerizes upon irradiation. However the inclusion of such compounds in a liquid crystalline layer are well known in the prior art. For example, Sakai teaches that the inclusion of a cinnamoyl group as a photo-reactive group permits a liquid crystalline compound to be oriented via irradiation ([0061]). Therefore it would have been obvious to have included such a compound in the liquid crystalline compounds described by Yoshida as a specific example of a compound providing polymerization via light and because they may helpfully provide orientation to the liquid crystalline layer (thus obviating the need for an alignment layer, Sakai, [0060], [0061]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yoshida teaches that the type of liquid crystalline compound for each of the anisotropic layers is not particularly limited and may include discotic and rod-like compounds ([0067] - [0071], [0098] – [0100], and including nematic compounds, [0066] and see [0084], wherein the horizontal or vertical alignment orientations are well known in the art). The person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to have made each of the layers out of various rod-like or discotic liquid crystals in order to modify the optical properties of each of the layers ([0066] – [0080], [0100] – [0112]). Yoshida further teaches that the first anisotropic layer may be directly laminated on the second anisotropic layer but because the makeup of the layers may be modified in order to modify the optical properties, either layer 26 or 28 may be considered to correspond to the claimed layers B or C (see Yoshida, [0066], Fig. 2 and generally [0067] – [0071], [0098]).
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 11, Yoshida teaches that the optical film may be used in combination with a polarizer applied adjacent to the first anisotropic layer (Fig. 2, [0066], [0049]). Yoshida teaches the polarizing plate may be used in organic electroluminescent device ([0009]), and further that the polarizer may be formed of a composition containing a polymerizable liquid crystalline compound ([0049], [0052]),
Regarding claim 12, Yoshida additionally teaches that the plate may be a positive C-plate ([0037], [0100]) and may have an in-plane retardation of less than 20 nm (e.g., [0272]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Sakai as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Mizusaki et al. (US 2016/0168465, “Mizusaki”).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida fails to specifically teach that the polymer has a repeating unit that decomposes to form a polar or radical group via irradiation. In the same field of endeavor of optical displays and liquid crystalline components ([0002]), Mizusaki teaches that self-cleaving monomers (including fluorine atoms, Mizusaki, see structures, [0049] – [0060]) are known to be included in liquid crystalline layers in order to permit them to produce radicals via irradiation (i.e., to cure the layer) and to reduce the irradiation required in order to cure the layer so as not to cause damage to the liquid crystals ([0044] – [0050]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included such a monomer in the composition of modified Yoshida in order to cure the layer via irradiation and to reduce the irradiation required in order to cure the layer so as not to cause damage to the liquid crystals ([0044] – [0050]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Sakai as applied to claim 7, above, and further in view of Tomonaga et al. (US 2010/0309414, “Tomonaga”).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida fails to specifically teach the corrected single transmittance of the polarizer however in the same field of endeavor of polarizers (e.g., [0007] – [0010]), Tomonaga teaches that a suitable transmittance for a polarizer is greater than 43% and thus acquiring and using such a polarizer or modifying the polarizer of Yoshida to have these transmittance properties would have been obvious in order to provide a polarizer with good levels of contrast ([0125]). The Examiner notes that 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 re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida in view of Sakai as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Matsuyama et al. (US 2015/0191651, “Matsuyama”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, while Yoshida teaches generally that an anisotropic film may be a positive C-plate (e.g., [0034], [0037]), Yoshida fails to teach its in-plane retardation. In the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films for use in display devices ([0002] – [0005]), Matsuyama teaches positive C-plates are useful for adjusting viewing angle compensation and for use in polarizing plates ([0102] – [0104]) and that the in-plane retardation for a positive C-plate is known to be generally on the range of from -10 nm to 10 nm ([0096]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adjusted the anisotropic film of Yoshida so as to function as a positive C-plate having an in-plane retardation of from -10 nm to 10 nm in order to provide the laminate with suitable viewing angle compensation or for use in polarizing plates ([0102] – [0104]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/29/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Therefore, claims 1-13 are rejected as described above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights