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.
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) 1-4 and 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 2019/0264034, “Endo”) in view of Jang et al. (US 2015/0241737, “Jang”).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 8, and 11, Endo teaches a laminate comprising anisotropic layers including a substrate and a polarizing film or layer (wherein the polarizing layer corresponds to the claimed absorption anisotropic layer, [0296], [0312], [0331] – [0334]), an optically anisotropic layer (e.g., [0029], including various liquid crystalline compounds described from paras. [0025]-[0200]). Endo teaches the optically anisotropic film may have liquid crystalline compounds arranged in a nematic or smectic phase ([0293], [0294], and may be uniformly arranged). Endo teaches that the liquid crystalline compound need not contain silicon or fluorine atoms (e.g., [0015] – [0025]). Endo teaches that the retardation film (i.e., the optically anisotropic film) may have a polarizing film, which may be considered to be a light absorption anisotropic layer, applied thereon ([0312]). Absorption type polarizing films include dichroic dyes thus providing absorption of different polarities and thus may be considered to be anisotropic since it is not transparent to light in every direction or polarity ([0331] - [0334], [0312]). Endo additionally teaches that the alignment of the slow axis of the optically anisotropic layer and the absorption axis of the polarizing layer may be different ([0315], [0325]). Endo additionally teaches that there may be first and second optically anisotropic layers and that they may be laminated on one another (e.g., A-plate, C-plate, laminated directly together [0313] - [0316]) and further laminated on a polarizer ([0293], [0312], polarizer may be considered a light absorption anisotropic layer). Endo fails to specifically teach that the inclusion of a photo-aligned group unevenly distributed in the light absorption film at the interface of the optical and light absorption anisotropic layers. However, in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films for ruse in display devices ([0002] – [0005]), Jang teaches to provide a composition which is unevenly distributed in an alignment film (e.g., [0073] – [0076]). Jang teaches to include photopolymerizable compounds in an adjacent alignment film and concentrated at the interface of the alignment film and the anisotropic film having liquid crystals in order to improve alignment and ultimately to produce a film that provides better visual outputs for use in a display device ([0074] – [0076]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included photopolymerizable compounds in the underlying substrate alignment film of Endo and to have concentrated the compounds at the interface of the alignment film and the anisotropic film having liquid crystals in order to improve alignment and ultimately to produce a film that provides better visual outputs for use in a display device ([0074] – [0076]).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Endo additionally teaches that the optically anisotropic film may have reverse wavelength dispersion and a ratio of Re(450)/Re(550) of 0.864 ([0350], [0003]).
Regarding claim 5, Endo additionally teaches that there may be first and second optically anisotropic layers and that they may be laminated on one another (e.g., A-plate, C-plate, [0313], [0315], [0316]) and further laminated on the substrate ([0293], as described in rejection of claim 1, above, substrate may be considered a light absorption anisotropic layer).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Endo additionally teaches that first anisotropic film may be a positive A-plate and a second anisotropic film may be a positive C-plate ([0313], [0315], [0316])
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Endo additionally teaches that the laminate may be used in a polarizing plate (e.g., [0002], [0325]) and a display device ([0009], [0012]).
Regarding claim 12, Endo teaches a laminate comprising anisotropic layers including a substrate and a polarizing film or layer (wherein the polarizing layer corresponds to the claimed absorption anisotropic layer, [0296], [0312], [0331] – [0334]), an optically anisotropic layer (e.g., [0029], including various liquid crystalline compounds described from paras. [0025]-[0200]). Endo teaches the optically anisotropic film may have liquid crystalline compounds arranged in a nematic or smectic phase ([0293], [0294], and may be uniformly arranged). Endo teaches that the liquid crystalline compound need not contain silicon or fluorine atoms (e.g., [0015] – [0025]). Endo teaches that the retardation film (i.e., the optically anisotropic film) may have a polarizing film, which may be considered to be a light absorption anisotropic layer, applied thereon ([0312]). Absorption type polarizing films include dichroic dyes thus providing absorption of different polarities and thus may be considered to be anisotropic since it is not transparent to light in every direction or polarity ([0331] - [0334], [0312]). Endo additionally teaches that the alignment of the slow axis of the optically anisotropic layer and the absorption axis of the polarizing layer may be different ([0315], [0325]). Endo additionally teaches that there may be first and second optically anisotropic layers and that they may be laminated on one another (e.g., A-plate, C-plate, laminated directly together [0313] - [0316]) and further laminated on a polarizer ([0293], [0312], polarizer may be considered a light absorption anisotropic layer). Endo additionally teaches the inclusion of a photo-alignment material that reads on presently claimed Formula (A) ([0287] – [0289], and including polyvinyl cinnamate, which reads on the claimed Formula (A) compound). Endo fails to specifically teach that the inclusion of a photo-aligned group unevenly distributed in the light absorption film at the interface of the optical and light absorption anisotropic layers. However, in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films for ruse in display devices ([0002] – [0005]), Jang teaches to provide a composition which is unevenly distributed in an alignment film (e.g., [0073] – [0076]). Jang teaches to include photopolymerizable compounds in an adjacent alignment film and concentrated at the interface of the alignment film and the anisotropic film having liquid crystals in order to improve alignment and ultimately to produce a film that provides better visual outputs for use in a display device ([0074] – [0076]). It therefore would have been obvious to have included photopolymerizable compounds in the underlying substrate alignment film of Endo and to have concentrated the compounds at the interface of the alignment film and the anisotropic film having liquid crystals in order to improve alignment and ultimately to produce a film that provides better visual outputs for use in a display device ([0074] – [0076]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/13/25 are considered moot in light of the new grounds of rejection, which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments. Arguments that are relevant to the current rejections are addressed below.
Applicant argues that Endo fails to teach the claimed laminate structure. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the body of the rejection above, Endo teaches that there may be first and second optically anisotropic layers and that they may be laminated on one another (e.g., A-plate, C-plate, laminated directly together [0313] - [0316]) and further laminated on a polarizer ([0293], [0312], polarizer may be considered a light absorption anisotropic layer). Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the laminate stack structure as presently claimed is described by Endo.
The applicant asserts that unexpected results overcome the obviousness rejection. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Although the applicant appears to have shown that the results are preferred, the applicant has failed to show that the results are necessarily unexpected and unexpected to a degree sufficient to overcome obviousness. Any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Please see MPEP §716.02. The burden is on the applicant to establish results are unexpected and significant. The evidence relied upon should establish that the differences in results are in fact unexpected, unobvious, commensurate in scope with the claims, and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP §716.02(b) and §716.02(d). The applicant is reminded that an affidavit or declaration must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §716.02(e).
Applicant further argues that because Endo does not recite a positive limitation that the photo-aligned polymer does not contain a fluorine atom or a silicon atom this limitation is not described by Endo. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains that because Endo teaches embodiments wherein the photo-aligned polymer does not include a fluorine or silicon atom this limitation is met. That is, the claimed structure wherein a silicon or fluorine atom is absent from a photo-aligned polymer is described in various embodiments of Endo. Please see rejection of claims 1, 8, and 12, above.
Therefore, claims 1-4 and 6-12 are rejected as described above.
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 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