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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 09/04/2025 has been entered. Currently claims 1-13 are pending.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 3 and 5 have overcome the claim objections. Thus the objections to claims 3 and 5 for minor informalities have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 09/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments:
(a) JP ‘806 and JP ‘320 merely disclose cationic initiators (e.g., CPI-1000) and thus do not show condition 2 (molar absorption coefficient ≥ 22,000 M-1cm-1); Applicant’s comparative examples show that merely using cationic initiator examples from JP’806/JP’320 does not meet condition 2.
(b) Examiner has not shown motivation to pay attention to the particular numerical conditions (±70 nm window and ε ≥ 22,000) to improve adhesion/durability.
(c) Claims 2, 9–12, Iwasaki does not teach/suggest the recitations at least for the
reasons given above with respect to claim 1.
(d) Examiner relied upon Fukagawa’s adhesiveness-improving resin component, but Applicant asserts that Fukagawa’s resin does not meet the Rf group requirement (Formula (F)) of claim 5.
(e) With respect to claim 13, Iwasaki is related to liquid crystal display device and Shibata teaches away from changing the liquid crystal display device to the organic EL display device.
Examiner’s response:
(a) The office does not assert that any single one of the applied references identical-for-identical discloses the exact numerical molar absorptivity value in claim 1. Rather, the rejection is based on the combined teachings. Iwasaki discloses the adhesive layer formed from an adhesive composition containing a polymerizable compound and a photopolymerization/cationic polymerization initiator in a polarizer/adhesive/optical film stack. JP ‘806 and JP ‘320 teach the selection and use of cationic polymerization initiators (and teach examples of such initiators and their use in adhesion/curing contexts); and JP ‘320 (and other art) discuss the problem of curing /compatibility with adjacent layers and selecting initiators suitable for such layered constructions. The Applicant’s comparative example using CPI-1000 (a specific cationic photoinitiator) only shows that that particular initiator may not meet the numerical molar absorptivity criterion. It does not negate the obviousness of selecting from the extensive class of known photoiniators/cationic initiators taught by JP’806/JP’320(and Iwasaki), a specific initiator that does meet the numerical threshold. A person of ordinary skill in the art, attempting to get robust curing/adhesion in a multilayer polarizer/optical film stack, would run routine selection/optimization among known initiators (a routine activity) and would select any of the readily available initiators with strong absorption and high molar absorptivity if required by processing constraints. Thus the existence of one example in prior art that does not meet the numerical limit does not negate the obviousness of selecting another prior art known initiator that does meet it. Finally, the claim’s two numerical/functional constraints (absorption overlap ±70 nm; molar absorptivity ≥ 22,000 M-1cm-1) are selection/optimizing parameters. The applied art teaches the relevant problem (cure through/adjacent to optical films, adhesion and durability improvement); the art also discloses initiators and techniques to address curing and adhesion problems. Selecting a photoinitiator with strong absorption in a particular spectral region and with sufficiently high absorptivity is a routine optimization, and is prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence of unexpected results attributable to the claimed numerical ranges. Therefore, the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
(b) Iwasaki identifies the laminated polarizer/optical compensation/adhesive context and specifically addresses stability, curing and spectral relationships of optical compensation layers (selection of compensation layers and matching with polarizer etc.). The combination of (i) Iwasaki’s disclosure of adhesive layers containing polymerizable compounds and initiators in laminated polarizing structures, together with (ii) JP ’806/JP ’320’s teaching regarding selection and use of photoinitiators/cationic initiators for curing through or near layers, would give a POSITA the reasonable expectation that choosing an initiator whose absorption appropriately overlaps the relevant optical transmission/absorption of the optical film will provide improved cure-through efficiency and hence better adhesive bonding and durability. The claimed ±70 nm overlap requirement and the high molar absorptivity criterion are design choices a POSITA would make to ensure sufficient photonic energy is absorbed by the initiator under the actual spectral conditions present after passing the compensation/optical film. It is routine and conventional to select a photoinitiator based on spectral overlap and extinction coefficient to achieve a desired cure rate/penetration — nothing in the cited art indicates that such selection is unconventional or unpredictable. The Applicant has not presented comparative data showing that initiators in the prior art cannot be selected to meet both conditions, nor has Applicant shown that the claimed combination produces unexpected technical results relative to the full scope of the prior art combination. The Applicant’s Comparative Example(s) showing one initiator that fails to meet condition 2 do not establish non-obviousness. Therefore, the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
(c) As above, Iwasaki in combination with the other applied references teaches the laminated structure (polarizer / adhesive / optical compensation film) and the presence of polymerizable compound + initiator in the adhesive layer. The dependent features (e.g., specific constructional details in Claims 2, 9–12) are disclosed in Iwasaki as explained in the office action (page 6). provides a teaching to include these features for their known advantages (adhesion, handling, protection), and selection of an initiator meeting the claimed spectral/absorptivity requirements would be made in that context. Therefore, the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
(d) The Office relied on Fukagawa for general teaching of adhesion-improving resins that may be included in adhesive compositions; Fukagawa describes fluorinated resins and adhesion promoter/resins (see the paragraphs cited in the Office Action). A POSITA reading Fukagawa would have been able to select or modify the adhesion-improving resins taught therein to include fluorinated substituents or other pendant groups consistent with Claim 5’s Rf group options (e.g., perfluoropolyether or fluorinated alkyl substituents). The Applicant point that a specific listed resin in Fukagawa does not literally contain exactly the Rf motifs of Claim 5 is noted. However, the legal standard for obviousness is not literal identity across every named species: a POSITA would have recognized Fukagawa’s general teaching of fluorinated adhesion resins and could have selected a fluorinated variant that satisfies the Rf condition recited in Claim 5. This is a predictable selection. If Applicant wishes to traverse this point further, please indicate the exact paragraph and exact resin(s) in Fukagawa that the examiner relied upon, and provide data demonstrating that all reasonable formulations disclosed in Fukagawa cannot be made to satisfy the claim Rf requirement. Absent such proof, the rejection stands as an obvious selection of an adhesion resin with the specified fluorinated grouping is routine. Therefore, the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
(e) Shibata clearly discloses that the invention is related to a laminate, an organic electroluminescent device, a liquid crystal display device (paragraph [0002]). Thus Shibata does not teach away from using liquid crystal display device. Also, please note that Shibata does not teach away from using the laminated polarizer/optically-anisotropic construction of Iwasaki in an organic electroluminescent organic EL/OLED) display. The use of Iwasaki as the primary reference for the layered polarizer/adhesive/optical film teachings and Shibata to show the same laminate concept applicable to organic EL device is therefore appropriate. Further, teachings away requires that the prior art reference contains language or explicit reasoning that would discourage one of ordinary skill in the art from combining references or pursuing the claimed approach. Mere focus of a reference on one filed (for example LCD) is not teaching away from applying the same teaching in another, related field (for example, OLEDs). Therefore, the rejection is proper and thus maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Iwasaki et al., (hereinafter Iwasaki), US 2020/0064673 in view of JP 8-143806 (hereinafter 806’) or JP 8-283320 (hereinafter 320’) (both JP references cited in the IDS).
As to claim 1, Iwasaki discloses (paragraphs [0116-0124], [0179-0188], [0246-
0268], a polarizing plate (16) comprising, adjacently in the following order: a polarizer (2); an adhesive layer (not shown) [0179]; and an optical film (4) exhibiting reverse wavelength dispersibility [0124].
Iwasaki further discloses that the adhesive layer containing a cationically polymerizable compound [0184]. Iwasaki doesn’t explicitly disclose, wherein the adhesive layer is a layer formed of an adhesive composition containing a polymerizable compound and a polymerization initiator, and the polarizing plate satisfies conditions 1 and 2 shown below, condition 1: a maximum absorption wavelength of the polymerization initiator is within ±70 nm of a minimum absorption wavelength of the optical film, and condition 2: a molar absorption coefficient of the polymerization initiator is 22,000 mol-1Lcm-1 or more.
However, as evidenced by 806’ and 320’ the use of cationic polymerization initiator is common and well known in the art . (806’ paragraphs [0050]-[0053]) and 320’ paragraph [0020]). Further, paragraph [0097] of the instant application discloses the use of cationic polymerization initiator described in 806’ and 320’.
It has also been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would chose to use the adhesive layer containing polymerizable compound and polymerizable initiator as suggested by 806’ and 320’ so that the polarizing plate satisfies the conditions 1 and 2 as claimed in order to have a polarizing plate that has improved adhesiveness and durability.
Further, it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adhesive layer of Iwasaki by including cationic polymerization initiator so that the polarizing plate satisfies conditions 1 and 2 shown below, condition 1: a maximum absorption wavelength of the polymerization initiator is within ±70 nm of a minimum absorption wavelength of the optical film, and condition 2: a molar absorption coefficient of the polymerization initiator is 22,000 mol-1Lcm-1 or more in order to have a polarizing plate that has improved adhesiveness and durability.
As to claim 2, Iwasaki discloses that the optical film has an optically anisotropic layer formed of polymerizable liquid crystal composition containing a polymerizable liquid crystal compound (paragraph [0079]-[0097]).
As to claim 9, Iwasaki discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1, wherein the polymerizable compound is a cationically polymerizable compound.(paragraph [0184].
As to claim 10, Iwasaki discloses the polarizing plate according to claim 1, wherein the polymerizable compound is a radically polymerizable compound (paragraph [0059]).
As to claim 11, Iwasaki discloses an image display device comprising the polarizing plate according to claim 1 (paragraph [0037]).
As to claim 12, Iwasaki discloses that the image display device according to claim 11, wherein the image display device is a liquid crystal display device (paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view 806’ or 320’ as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Shibata et al., (hereinafter Shibata), US 2021/0181396.
As to claims 3 and 13, Iwasaki doesn’t explicitly disclose that the polymerizable liquid crystal compound is a compound having a linking group represented by any of formula (Ar-1) to (Ar-7) (claim 3) and that the image display device is an organic electroluminescent display device (claim 13).
However, Shibata related to same field of endeavor discloses in paragraphs [0073]-[0127], [0176]-[0183], [0207-0210], [0214-0217] using a polymerizable liquid crystal compound having a linking group represented by any of formula (Ar-1) to (Ar-7).Shibata also discloses applying the invention therein to an organic EL display device (paragraphs [0002, 0008, 0214]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwasaki when modified by 806’ or 320’ by including a polymerizable liquid crystal compound having a linking group represented by any of formula (Ar-1) to (Ar-7) and having an organic EL display device for the advantage of improved durability. .
Claim(s) 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view 806’ or 320’ as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fukagawa et al., (hereinafter Fukagawa), US 2020/0217993.
As to claims 4-6 Iwasaki when modified by 806’ and 320’ doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein a polymer having a repeating unit represented by Formula (B) is present on a surface of the optical film on the adhesive layer side or a surface of the adhesive layer on the optical film side (claim 4), wherein the polymer is a copolymer further having a repeating unit represented by Formula (F) (claim 5), and wherein the polymer is present on a surface of the optical film on the adhesive layer side (claim 6).
However, Fukagawa related to same field of endeavor discloses in paragraphs [0205-0303], [0507-0622] having a repeating unit represented by Formula (B) is present on a surface of the optical film on the adhesive layer side or a surface of the adhesive layer on the optical film side (claim 4), wherein the polymer is a copolymer further having a repeating unit represented by Formula (F) (claim 5), and wherein the polymer is present on a surface of the optical film on the adhesive layer side (claim 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a repeating unit represented by Formula (B) is present on a surface of the optical film on the adhesive layer side or a surface of the adhesive layer on the optical film side (claim 4), wherein the polymer is a copolymer further having a repeating unit represented by Formula (F) (claim 5), and wherein the polymer is present on a surface of the optical film on the adhesive layer side (claim 6) in the modified polarizing plate of Iwasaki as suggested by Fukagawa for the advantage of enhanced adhesiveness ([0206].
As to claim 8, Iwasaki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the adhesive composition further contains a sensitizer, and the sensitizer has a maximum absorption wavelength that is on a longer wavelength side than a maximum absorption wavelength of the polymerization initiator and in a wavelength range where a transmittance of the optical film is 1% or more.
However, Fukugawa from the same field of endeavor discloses (paragraphs [0516, 0583, 0584, 0586, 0605, 0606, 0608] using a xanthone-based or anthracene-based photosensitizer in a photocurable adhesive, similar to the disclosure in paragraph [0099] of the description of the present application.
Further, It has also been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Further, it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwasaki wherein the adhesive composition further contains a sensitizer, and the sensitizer has a maximum absorption wavelength that is on a longer wavelength side than a maximum absorption wavelength of the polymerization initiator and in a wavelength range where a transmittance of the optical film is 1% or more, as suggested by Fukugawa for improved adhesiveness and durability.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable overIwasaki in view 806’ or 320’ as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of
Masataka et al., (hereinafter Masataka), JP 2020052411 (cited in the IDS).
As to claim 7, the modified polarizing plate of Iwasaki doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the optical film has at least one optically anisotropic layer where a liquid crystal state of a smectic phase is immobilized.
However, Masataka related to same field of endeavor discloses using an optically anisotropic layer in which polymerizable liquid crystal compound is fixed in a state expressing the smectic phase (paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Iwasaki wherein the optical film has at least one optically anisotropic layer where a liquid crystal state of a smectic phase is immobilized.as suggested by Masataka for the advantage of improved durability.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571) 272-5560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877