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 .
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 1-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (CN 105807354) (English translation attached) in view of Tan (US 20180067232).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) a polarizing plate comprising: a polarizer (211) formed of a composition containing a first liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance (Page 3; mixed BASF polymeric nematic liquid crystal LC-1057 and nematel dichroic dyes AB4 and AZO1); and an optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) disposed adjacent to the polarizer and formed of a composition containing a second liquid crystal compound (Page 3; mixing BASF polymerizable liquid crystal LC-242 and BASF LC-756), wherein a content of the dichroic substance in the polarizer is 40% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the polarizer (Page 3; about 3 grams of first LC compound and about 0.12 gram of dyes).
Peng does not necessarily disclose a content of the dichroic substance in the polarizer is 5% to 40% by mass with respect to a total mass of the polarizer.
Tan discloses (Figs. 1a-12) a content of the dichroic substance in the polarizer (104) is 5% to 40% by mass with respect to a total mass of the polarizer (sections 0034, 0054, 0082, 0131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Tan to improve the degree of polarization.
Regarding claim 2, Peng does not necessarily disclose the content of the dichroic substance in the polarizer is 5% to 30% by mass with respect to the total mass of the polarizer.
Tan discloses (Figs. 1a-12) the content of the dichroic substance in the polarizer is 5% to 30% by mass with respect to the total mass of the polarizer (sections 0034, 0054, 0082, 0131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Tan to improve the degree of polarization.
Regarding claim 3, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) an angle formed by an absorption axis of the polarizer (211) and an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) on a side of the polarizer is within 1° (Page 2).
Regarding claim 4, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) is a layer formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis (Fig. 2; Page 3).
Regarding claim 5, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) has a plurality of layers formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, and twisted angles of the second liquid crystal compound are different from each other in the plurality of layers (Page 4).
Regarding claim 6, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) has a plurality of layers formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, and the plurality of layers each have a different ratio of the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound to a thickness of the layer (Page 4).
Regarding claim 8, Peng does not necessarily disclose in a case of carrying out a component analysis in a depth direction of the polarizer by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, a relationship between a maximum intensity Imax of a secondary ion intensity derived from the dichroic substance and an intensity Isur1 of the secondary ion intensity derived from the dichroic substance on a surface of the polarizer on a side opposite to the optically anisotropic layer satisfies Expression (3), Expression (3) 2.0≤Imax/Isur1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular intensities, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular intensities, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Peng does not necessarily disclose an absolute value of a difference between a log P of the second liquid crystal compound and a log P of the dichroic substance is 3.0 or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular log P’s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular log P’s, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) an angle formed by an absorption axis of the polarizer (211) and an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) on a side of the polarizer is within 1° (Page 2).
Regarding claim 12, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) is a layer formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis (Fig. 2; Page 3).
Regarding claim 13, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) has a plurality of layers formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, and twisted angles of the second liquid crystal compound are different from each other in the plurality of layers (Page 4).
Regarding claim 14, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) has a plurality of layers formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, and the plurality of layers each have a different ratio of the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound to a thickness of the layer (Page 4).
Regarding claim 16, Peng does not necessarily disclose in a case of carrying out a component analysis in a depth direction of the polarizer by time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry, a relationship between a maximum intensity Imax of a secondary ion intensity derived from the dichroic substance and an intensity Isur1 of the secondary ion intensity derived from the dichroic substance on a surface of the polarizer on a side opposite to the optically anisotropic layer satisfies Expression (3), Expression (3) 2.0≤Imax/Isur1.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular intensities, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular intensities, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 17, Peng does not necessarily disclose an absolute value of a difference between a log P of the second liquid crystal compound and a log P of the dichroic substance is 3.0 or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular log P’s, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particular log P’s, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 19, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) is a layer formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis (Fig. 2; Page 3).
Regarding claim 20, Peng discloses (Figs. 1-6C) the optically anisotropic layer (214, 216) has a plurality of layers formed by fixing a twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, and twisted angles of the second liquid crystal compound are different from each other in the plurality of layers (Page 4).
Claims 7, 10, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng and Tan in view of Saitoh et al. (US 20140284582).
Regarding claim 7, Peng does not necessarily disclose the optically anisotropic layer has a first optically anisotropic layer and a second optically anisotropic layer, the first optically anisotropic layer is disposed on a side of the polarizer, the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer are layers formed by fixing the twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer and a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer are the same, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer is 26.5°±10.0°, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer is 78.6°±10.0°, an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the first optically anisotropic layer on a second optically anisotropic layer side is parallel to an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the second optically anisotropic layer on a first optically anisotropic layer side, and a value of a product Δn1·d1 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn1 of the first optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d1 of the first optically anisotropic layer, and a value of a product Δn2·d2 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn2 of the second optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d2 of the second optically anisotropic layer satisfy Expression (1) and Expression (2), respectively, 252 nm ≤ Δn1·d1 ≤312 nm Expression (1) 110 nm ≤ Δn2·d2 ≤170 nm Expression (2).
Saitoh discloses (Figs. 1-11(B)) the optically anisotropic layer (10) has a first optically anisotropic layer (12a) and a second optically anisotropic layer (14a), the first optically anisotropic layer is disposed on a side of the polarizer (18), the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer are layers formed by fixing the twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer and a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer are the same, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer is 26.5°±10.0°, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer is 78.6°±10.0°, an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the first optically anisotropic layer on a second optically anisotropic layer side is parallel to an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the second optically anisotropic layer on a first optically anisotropic layer side, and a value of a product Δn1·d1 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn1 of the first optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d1 of the first optically anisotropic layer, and a value of a product Δn2·d2 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn2 of the second optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d2 of the second optically anisotropic layer satisfy Expression (1) and Expression (2), respectively, 252 nm ≤ Δn1·d1 ≤312 nm Expression (1) 110 nm ≤ Δn2·d2 ≤170 nm Expression (2) (sections 0011-0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Saitoh to improve a contrast ratio of display light.
Regarding claim 10, Peng does not necessarily disclose an organic electroluminescent display device comprising the polarizing plate.
Saitoh discloses (Figs. 1-11(B)) an organic electroluminescent display device comprising the polarizing plate (100a) (section 0152). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Saitoh to improve a contrast ratio of display light.
Regarding claim 15, Peng does not necessarily disclose the optically anisotropic layer has a first optically anisotropic layer and a second optically anisotropic layer, the first optically anisotropic layer is disposed on a side of the polarizer, the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer are layers formed by fixing the twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer and a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer are the same, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer is 26.5°±10.0°, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer is 78.6°±10.0°, an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the first optically anisotropic layer on a second optically anisotropic layer side is parallel to an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the second optically anisotropic layer on a first optically anisotropic layer side, and a value of a product Δn1·d1 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn1 of the first optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d1 of the first optically anisotropic layer, and a value of a product Δn2·d2 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn2 of the second optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d2 of the second optically anisotropic layer satisfy Expression (1) and Expression (2), respectively, 252 nm ≤ Δn1·d1 ≤ 312 nm Expression (1) 110 nm ≤ Δn2·d2 ≤170 nm Expression (2).
Saitoh discloses (Figs. 1-11(B)) the optically anisotropic layer (10) has a first optically anisotropic layer (12a) and a second optically anisotropic layer (14a), the first optically anisotropic layer is disposed on a side of the polarizer, the first optically anisotropic layer and the second optically anisotropic layer are layers formed by fixing the twist-aligned second liquid crystal compound with a thickness direction as a helical axis, a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer and a twisted direction of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer are the same, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the first optically anisotropic layer is 26.5°±10.0°, the twisted angle of the second liquid crystal compound in the second optically anisotropic layer is 78.6°±10.0°, an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the first optically anisotropic layer on a second optically anisotropic layer side is parallel to an in-plane slow axis on a surface of the second optically anisotropic layer on a first optically anisotropic layer side, and a value of a product Δn1·d1 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn1 of the first optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d1 of the first optically anisotropic layer, and a value of a product Δn2·d2 of a refractive index anisotropy Δn2 of the second optically anisotropic layer measured at a wavelength of 550 nm and a thickness d2 of the second optically anisotropic layer satisfy Expression (1) and Expression (2), respectively, 252 nm ≤ Δn1·d1 ≤ 312 nm Expression (1) 110 nm ≤ Δn2·d2 ≤170 nm Expression (2) (sections 0011-0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Saitoh to improve a contrast ratio of display light.
Regarding claim 18, Peng does not necessarily disclose an organic electroluminescent display device comprising the polarizing plate.
Saitoh discloses (Figs. 1-11(B)) an organic electroluminescent display device comprising the polarizing plate (100a) (section 0152). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Saitoh to improve a contrast ratio of display light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHARLES S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5024. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Michael Caley can be reached at (571) 272-2286. 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.
/CHARLES S CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871