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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s amendment filed March 5, 2026. Claims 1-15 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to independent claim 1, applicant’s arguments, on pages 8-9 of the remarks, that the previously applied prior art fails to disclose all of the limitations of claim 1, as newly amended, have been fully considered and are appreciated. However, the newly cited rejection, necessitated by amendment, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1, as set forth below.
Similar arguments apply to independent claim 11.
Therefore, claims 1-15 are rejected, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regard to independent claim 1, the limitation “super retardation film” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear what physical attributes may a retardation film a “super retardation film”. For examination purposes, it is presumed that any retardation film satisfies the limitation.
Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1.
Further regarding claim 2, the limitations “the optically isotropic film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 10 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less; or the optically isotropic film is triacetyl cellulose” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, claim requires the carrier film to be an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film. It is unclear if the conditions of the claim are met in the case that the carrier film is a super retardation film. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the claim should additionally require the carrier film to be an optically isotropic film.
Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 2.
Further regarding claim 5, the limitation “the super retardation film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 4,000 nm or more and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, claim requires the carrier film to be an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film. It is unclear if the conditions of the claim are met in the case that the carrier film is a optically isotropic film. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the claim should additionally require the carrier film to be a super retardation film.
In regard to independent claim 11, the limitation “super retardation film” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear what physical attributes may a retardation film a “super retardation film”. For examination purposes, it is presumed that any retardation film satisfies the limitation.
Claims 12-15 depend from claim 10.
Further regarding claim 12, the limitation, “does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer in direct contact with the negative biaxial retardation film” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is not clear if “a liquid crystal alignment film” and “a liquid crystal layer” are referring to the “vertical alignment film” and “vertically aligned liquid crystal layer”, as set forth in claim 11. Further, it is not clear which of the layers should or should not be in contact with the negative biaxial retardation film. For examination purposes, it is presumed that the layers as set forth in claim 11 are not in direct contact with the negative biaxial retardation film.
Further regarding claim 14, the limitation, “a vertical alignment film present on an opposite side of a side of the vertically aligned liquid crystal layer on which the negative biaxial retardation film is present” renders the scope of the claim unclear. Namely, it is unclear if application is claiming a second vertical alignment film or if it is referring to the vertical alignment film of claim 11. For examination purposes, it is presumed that it is the same layer as introduced in claim 11.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14.
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 1-3, 6-9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (CN 113156565, of which an English translation is attached) in view of Jang et al. (US 2007/0091229 A1) and further in view of Kamisaka et al. (JP 2004-309772, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Shiraishi et al. discloses a method for manufacturing a polarizing plate (see e.g. Figures 5-6 for method of manufacturing) comprising a step of laminating a first laminate 28 (denoted “second phase difference layer”, see e.g. page 8, 8th paragraph of English translation) comprising a carrier film 25 (denoted “second substrate layer’, see e.g. page 8, 8th paragraph of English translation) and a vertically aligned liquid crystal layer 22 (denoted “second liquid crystal layer”, see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of the English translation for vertical orientation), and a second laminate 18 (denoted “a first phase difference layer”, see e.g. page 10, 7th paragraph of English translation) comprising a retardation film 12 (denoted “a first liquid crystal layer”, see e.g. page 8, 13th full paragraph of English translation) and a polarizer 40 (see e.g. page 8, 11th full paragraph of English translation) via an adhesive layer 32 (denoted “second bonding layer”, see e.g. page 8, 10th full paragraph of English translation) to manufacture a third laminate (see e.g. Figures 5-6);
wherein, the first laminate 28 further comprises a vertical alignment film 21 (denoted “alignment layer”, see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of English translation) between the carrier film 25 and the vertically aligned liquid crystal layer 22, and
the first laminate 28 comprises no addition protective film for protecting the vertically aligned liquid crystal layer (see e.g. Figure 5 where 28 has no additional protecting layer).
Shiraishi et al. fails to disclose
a negative biaxial retardation film; and
the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film.
However, Jang et al. discloses
a negative biaxial retardation film 4 (denoted “biaxial retardation film”, see e.g. Figure 3, paragraphs [0070], [0042], Table 1).
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al. with a negative biaxial retardation film.
Providing a negative biaxial retardation film allows for compensation of a viewing angle of a liquid crystal device (see e.g. paragraph [0021] of Jang et al.).
Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al., fails to disclose
the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film.
However, Kamisaka et al. discloses
the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film (see e.g. paragraphs [0006] and [0024] of English translation).
Given the teachings of Kamisaka et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al., with the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film.
Using an isotropic substrate would not affect the alignment of the subsequent layers.
In regard to claim 2, Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the optically isotropic film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 10 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less; or
the optically isotropic film is triacetyl cellulose.
However, Kamisaka et al. discloses
the optically isotropic film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 10 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less; or
the optically isotropic film is triacetyl cellulose (see e.g. paragraphs [0006] and [0024] of English translation).
Given the teachings of Kamisaka et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al., with the optically isotropic film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 10 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less; or the optically isotropic film is triacetyl cellulose.
Using an isotropic substrate would not affect the alignment of the subsequent layers.
In regard to claim 3, Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein a peel force between the vertical alignment film and the carrier film at a peel angle of 1800 and a peel rate of 300 mm/min is 15 N/20mm or less.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein a peel force between the vertical alignment film and the carrier film at a peel angle of 1800 and a peel rate of 300 mm/min is 15 N/20mm or less, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 method of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., with wherein a peel force between the vertical alignment film and the carrier film at a peel angle of 180° and a peel rate of 300 mm/min is 15 N/20mm or less.
Providing optimized circumstances of the peeling from the carrier would result in a film that may be released without degradation or mechanical damage.
In regard to claim 6, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the negative biaxial retardation film is a stretched polymer film.
However, Jang et al. discloses
wherein the negative biaxial retardation film 4 is a stretched polymer film (see e.g. Figure 3, paragraphs [0070], [0042], [0029]).
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al. with wherein the negative biaxial retardation film is a stretched polymer film.
Providing a stretched polymer film instead of a liquid crystal layer would provide an art recognized equivalent film that would achieve the same purpose. In regard to claim 7, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the adhesive layer is an ultraviolet cure adhesive layer (see e.g. page 7, fourth paragraph of the English translation).
In regard to claim 8, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the second laminate does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer.
However, Jang et al. discloses
wherein the second laminate 12 does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that 12 does not include either film).
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 device of Shiraishi et al. with wherein the second laminate does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer.
Providing a stretched polymer film instead of a liquid crystal layer would provide an art recognized equivalent film that would achieve the same purpose.
In regard to claim 9, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
a step of peeling the carrier film from the third laminate (see e.g. page 8, 10th paragraph of English translation).
In regard to claim 11, Shiraishi et al. discloses a polarizing plate comprising (see e.g. Figures 1-6):
a first laminate 28 (denoted “second phase difference layer”, see e.g. page 8, 8th paragraph of English translation) comprising a carrier film 25 (denoted “second substrate layer’, see e.g. page 8, 8th paragraph of English translation) and a vertically aligned liquid crystal layer 22 (denoted “second liquid crystal layer”, see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of the English translation for vertical orientation), and
a second laminate 18 (denoted “a first phase difference layer”, see e.g. page 10, 7th paragraph of English translation) comprising a retardation film 12 (denoted “a first liquid crystal layer”, see e.g. page 8, 13th full paragraph of English translation) and a polarizer 40 (see e.g. page 8, 11th full paragraph of English translation), and
further comprising an adhesive layer 32 (denoted “second bonding layer”, see e.g. page 8, 10th full paragraph of English translation) for attaching the first laminate 28 and the second laminate 18;
wherein, the first laminate 28 further comprises a vertical alignment film 21 (denoted “alignment layer”, see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of English translation) between the carrier film 25 and the vertically aligned liquid crystal layer 22,
the first laminate 28 comprises no addition protective film for protecting the vertically aligned liquid crystal layer (see e.g. Figure 5 where 28 has no additional protecting layer).
Shiraishi et al. fails to disclose
a negative biaxial retardation film; and
the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film.
However, Jang et al. discloses
a negative biaxial retardation film 4 (denoted “biaxial retardation film”, see e.g. Figure 3, paragraphs [0070], [0042], Table 1).
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 device of Shiraishi et al. with a negative biaxial retardation film.
Providing a negative biaxial retardation film allows for compensation of a viewing angle of a liquid crystal device (see e.g. paragraph [0021] of Jang et al.).
Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al., fails to disclose
the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film.
However, Kamisaka et al. discloses
the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film (see e.g. paragraphs [0006] and [0024] of English translation).
Given the teachings of Kamisaka et al., 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 device of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al., with the carrier film is an optically isotropic film or a super retardation film.
Using an isotropic substrate would not affect the alignment of the subsequent layers.
In regard to claim 12, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
the polarizing plate does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer in direct contact with the negative biaxial retardation film.
However, Jang et al. further discloses the polarization plate does not include a liquid crystal alignment film (see e.g. Figure 3 and note that 12 does not include an alignment film). Further, it is noted that incorporation of the biaxial film of Jang et al. in the device of Shiraishi et al. would result in the polarizing plate does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer in direct contact with the negative biaxial retardation film.
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 device of Shiraishi et al. with the polarizing plate does not include a liquid crystal alignment film and a liquid crystal layer in direct contact with the negative biaxial retardation film.
Providing a negative biaxial retardation film allows for compensation of a viewing angle of a liquid crystal device (see e.g. paragraph [0021] of Jang et al.).
In regard to claim 13, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the negative biaxial retardation film is a stretched polymer film.
However, Jang et al. discloses
wherein the negative biaxial retardation film 4 is a stretched polymer film (see e.g. Figure 3, paragraphs [0070], [0042], [0029]).
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al. with wherein the negative biaxial retardation film is a stretched polymer film.
Providing a stretched polymer film instead of a liquid crystal layer would provide an art recognized equivalent film that would achieve the same purpose.
In regard to claim 14, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 11 above, and
a vertical alignment film 21 (denoted “alignment layer”, see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of English translation) present on an opposite side of a side of the vertically aligned liquid crystal layer 22on which the retardation film 12 is present.
Shiraishi et al. fails to disclose
a negative biaxial retardation film.
However, Jang et al. discloses
a negative biaxial retardation film 4 (denoted “biaxial retardation film”, see e.g. Figure 3, paragraphs [0070], [0042], Table 1).
Given the teachings of Jang et al., 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 device of Shiraishi et al. with a negative biaxial retardation film.
Providing a negative biaxial retardation film allows for compensation of a viewing angle of a liquid crystal device (see e.g. paragraph [0021] of Jang et al.).
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (CN 113156565) in view of Jang et al. (US 2007/0091229 A1) in view of Kamisaka et al. (JP 2004-309772) and further in view of Tanabe et al. (US 2013/0203920 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the vertical alignment film 21 (see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of English translation)comprises a photo-orientational compound and an acrylate (see e.g. page 18, first full paragraph-page 19 second full paragraph).
Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., fails to disclose
an acrylate with trifunctionalities or more.
However, Tanabe et al. discloses
wherein the vertical alignment film comprises a photo-orientational compound (see e.g. paragraph [0063]) and an acrylate with trifunctionalities or more (see e.g. paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
Given the teachings of Tanabe et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., with wherein the vertical alignment film comprises a photo-orientational compound and an acrylate with trifunctionalities or more.
Providing such materials would result in a film with a high optical uniformity free of defects that may be photoaligned with a short exposure time (see e.g. abstract of Tanabe et al.).
In regard to claim 15, Shiraishi et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 14 above, and
wherein the vertical alignment film 21 (see e.g. page 8, last paragraph and page 18, first full paragraph of English translation)comprises a photo-orientational compound and an acrylate (see e.g. page 18, first full paragraph-page 19 second full paragraph).
Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., fails to disclose
an acrylate with trifunctionalities or more.
However, Tanabe et al. discloses
wherein the vertical alignment film comprises a photo-orientational compound (see e.g. paragraph [0063]) and an acrylate with trifunctionalities or more (see e.g. paragraphs [0084]-[0085]).
Given the teachings of Tanabe et al., 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 device of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., with wherein the vertical alignment film comprises a photo-orientational compound and an acrylate with trifunctionalities or more.
Providing such materials would result in a film with a high optical uniformity free of defects that may be photoaligned with a short exposure time (see e.g. abstract of Tanabe et al.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (CN 113156565) in view of Jang et al. (US 2007/0091229 A1) in view of Kamisaka et al. (JP 2004-309772) and further in view of Hanelt (WO 2004/103348, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 5, Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
the super retardation film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 4,000 nm or more and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less.
However, Hanelt discloses using a carrier substrate having a retardation (see e.g. page 12 last paragraph, continued on page 13 of English translation). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using an in-plane retardation value of 4,000 nm or more and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Hanelt, 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 method of Shiraishi et al. with the super retardation film is a film having an absolute value of an in-plane retardation value of 4,000 nm or more and an absolute value of a thickness direction retardation value of 40 nm or less.
Providing a carrier with a retardation value may be used to influence the optical characteristics formed on the carrier.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiraishi et al. (CN 113156565) in view of Jang et al. (US 2007/0091229 A1) in view of Kamisaka et al. (JP 2004-309772) and further in view of Kamisaka et al. (JP 2008009403), hereinafter Kamisaka ‘403.
In regard to claim 10, Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 9 above, but fails to disclose
a step of attaching a release film to a side of the third laminate, on which the carrier film is peeled off, via a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
However, Kamisaka et al. discloses
a step of attaching a release film to a side of the third laminate, on which the carrier film is peeled off, via a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (see e.g. page 17, second full paragraph where use of a release/releasable substrate 1 is used and page 16, first partial paragraph for pressure sensitive adhesive).
Given the teachings of Kamisaka et al., 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 method of Shiraishi et al., in view of Jang et al. and Kamisaka et al., with a step of attaching a release film to a side of the third laminate, on which the carrier film is peeled off, via a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer.
Providing an intermediate film would provide protection to the laminate layers that are exposed.
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 JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights