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 .
Response to Amendment
Withdrawn Rejections
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-16 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment and clarifications in the response filed on June 5, 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-16 over Kim in view of Murakami, as the primary combination of references, are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed on June 5, 2026.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is unclear in the last two lines, whether: the upper case “A” preceding the term “ratio” and the description “area ratio” in brackets, is intended to represent the area part of the area ratio, or is a typographical error in that the upper case “A” is intended to be a lower case “a”. For the purposes of examination, the second interpretation is used.
Furthermore, it is unclear in the same last two lines, whether the term “may” preceding the range from 0.03% to 0.5%, qualifies the range as being optional. For the purposes of examination, the range is deemed to be optional.
Claims 2-13, 16, depend on and include all the subject matter of claim 1, but fail to provide any solutions to the indefinite issues described above.
Clarification accompanied by relevant citation(s) from the specification are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (Clarivate Analytics English translation of WO-2021/117289-A1) in view of Murakami (US 6,572,941).
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches a polarizing plate (100, Polarizing plate A-1, item A, 4th para of page 2) comprising: a protective film formed on a surface of a polarizer (protective layer 12 arranged on one side of the polarizing element 11, Polarizing plate A-1, item A, 4th para of page 2), wherein the polarizer has a thickness of 5 µm or less (5th para of page 2, Example 1, 3rd para of page 9) which is within the claimed range of 9 µm or less, wherein a hole is formed in a region of the polarizing plate 100 in an in-plane direction (through hole 30, 2nd last para of page 2, Fig. 1A) to penetrate through the polarizing plate 100 in a thickness direction thereof (through hole 30, 2nd last para of page 2, Fig. 2), wherein the hole has a diameter of 4 mm (Example 1, 4th para of page 9) which is within the claimed range of 4 mm or less, and an area ratio of an area of the hole to a total area of the polarizing plate is 0.13% ([Symbol font/0x50] (4 mm/2)2 x 100/(142.0 mm x 66.8 mm), Example 1, 4th para of page 9), which is within the claimed range of from 0.03% to 0.5%, for the purpose of providing an opening corresponding to a camera unit, when the polarizing plate is an optical component of a mobile phone comprising the camera unit (1st para of page 2).
Morimoto teaches that the polarizing plate is left under heat shock conditions (test, item (1), 4th last para of page 7) of:
1) cooling the polarizing plate to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (holding at -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes, item (1), 4th last para of page 7),
2) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (holding at 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes, item (1), 4th last para of page 7) which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
3) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
4) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
5) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes ((repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
6) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins ((repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
7) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes ((repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), where the high temperature of 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C is only 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C higher than the presently claimed high temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Morimoto is silent regarding a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) of the polarizing plate, and hence fails to teach that it has a CTE of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, as measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, after the polarizing plate is left under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
However, Morimoto teaches that the polarizer is a polyvinyl alcohol film that is uniaxially stretched (PVA-based resin film, 2nd last para of page 4, Example 1, 4th para of page 8), and that the protective film is a triacetyl cellulose film (TAC) (TAC film is attached so as to be on the polarizer side, Example 1, 4th para of page 9).
Murakami teaches that a CTE of a polarizing plate (overall polarizing film102, col 5, lines 12-21) comprising a polarizer that is a polyvinyl alcohol film, and a protective film that is a TAC film (col 5, lines 10-21), is desirably the CTE of the TAC protective film which in this case, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C (col 5, lines 10-21) which is within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less.
Although Murakami is silent as to whether the CTE of the TAC protective film and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate is measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, the units of “cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C” (col 5, lines 10-21) which converts to “µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C)”, are for a linear coefficient of expansion which is conventionally measured in the stretching direction which has the largest linear expansion, such that the CTE of the TAC protective film and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate as measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, is expected to be 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C or less, which is within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less.
Morimoto teaches in the heat shock conditions, a heating rate of 10[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min and a cooling rate of 10[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min (rate of temperature rise and fall in the heat shock test, item (1), 4th last para of page 7) which are twice as fast as the claimed heating rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min and the claimed cooling rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min, and along with the 100 cycles of heat shock treatment, are in combination, much more severe than the mere 3 cycles of treatment that are presently claimed. Yet Morimoto teaches that the exemplary polarizing plate has no observed cracks even after the 100 cycles of heat shock treatment (AA, last para of page 7, Example 1, Table 1 on page 22 of original document), such that the CTE of the polarizing plate as measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, is expected to have undergone minimal change, and hence to stay within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, for the purpose of providing the desired durability under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the polarizing plate of Morimoto with a CTE that stays within a range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, as measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, even after having been left under the above described heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired heat shock durability, as taught by Murakami.
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto teaches that the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol-based film (polyvinyl alcohol-base resin film, 3rd last para of page 4, acetoacetyl- modified PVA, Example 1, 3rd para of page 8), and the polyvinyl alcohol-based film contains both a hydrophilic functional group (alcoholic hydroxy group of polyvinyl alcohol, 3rd last para of page 4) and a hydrophobic functional group (acetoacetyl-modified, Example 1, 3rd para of page 8).
Regarding claim 6, Morimoto teaches that the polarizer is a polyvinyl alcohol film (polyvinyl alcohol-base resin film, 3rd last para of page 4, acetoacetyl- modified PVA, Example 1, 3rd para of page 8), and that the protective film can be a polyethylene terephthalate film (Example 1, 2nd para of page 8) instead of a triacetyl cellulose film (TAC) (TAC film is attached so as to be on the polarizer side, Example 1, 4th para of page 9).
Murakami teaches that a CTE of a polarizing plate (overall polarizing film102, col 5, lines 12-21) comprising a polarizer that is a polyvinyl alcohol film, and a protective film (col 5, lines 10-21), is desirably the CTE of the protective film, which in the case of PET, is 15 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (1.5 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C, Fig. 4, col 5, lines 10-21) which is within the claimed range of 20 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, as measured before the polarizing plate is left under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the protective film of the polarizing plate of Morimoto, with a CTE that is within a range of 20 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, before the polarizing plate is left under the presently claimed heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired heat shock durability, as taught by Murakami.
Regarding claim 7, Murakami teaches that the protective film has a coefficient of thermal expansion of 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C (col 5, lines 10-21) which is within the claimed range of 40 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or more.
Morimoto teaches that the polarizing plate is left under heat shock conditions (test, item (1), 4th last para of page 7) of:
1) cooling the polarizing plate to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (holding at -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes, item (1), 4th last para of page 7),
2) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (holding at 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes, item (1), 4th last para of page 7) which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from 25[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
3) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes (repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
4) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins (repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
5) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes ((repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
6) heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 mins ((repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of heating the polarizing plate from -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C,
7) cooling the polarizing plate from 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C for 30 minutes ((repeated for 100 cycles, item (1), 4th last para of page 7), which includes the presently claimed condition of cooling the polarizing plate from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to -40[Symbol font/0xB0]C (200 cycles of treatment [0100]), where the high temperature of 85[Symbol font/0xB0]C is only 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C higher than the presently claimed high temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Morimoto teaches in the heat shock conditions, a heating rate of 10[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min and a cooling rate of 10[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min (rate of temperature rise and fall in the heat shock test, item (1), 4th last para of page 7) which are twice as fast as the claimed heating rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min and the claimed cooling rate of 5[Symbol font/0xB0]C/min, and along with the 100 cycles of heat shock treatment, are in combination, much more severe than the mere 3 cycles of treatment that are presently claimed. Yet Morimoto teaches that the exemplary polarizing plate has no observed cracks even after the 100 cycles of heat shock treatment (AA, last para of page 7, Example 1, Table 1 on page 22 of original document), such that the CTE of the polarizing plate as measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, is expected to have undergone minimal change, and hence to stay within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less, for the purpose of providing the desired durability under the presently claimed heat shock conditions.
Accordingly, in the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the protective film of the polarizing plate of Morimoto, with a CTE that stays within a range of 40 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or more, even after having been left under the above described heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired heat shock durability, as taught by Murakami.
Regarding claim 8, Morimoto teaches that the protective film comprises a triacetylcellulose (TAC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), or cyclic polyolefin resin film (cycloolefin resin (COP), Example 25, 2nd para of page 12) which is desirably amorphous.
Regarding claim 16, Morimoto teaches an optical display comprising the polarizing plate(image display device, item C, 3rd para of page 7) .
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 16 above, as further evidenced by Hiroyuki (Clarivate Analytics English translation of JP-2005-023214-A).
Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, as described above. In addition, Morimoto teaches that the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol film (PVA-based resin film, 2nd last para of page 4, Example 1, 4th para of page 8) which has a softening point that is within a range of 66[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C, as evidenced by Hiroyuki.
Hiroyuki teaches that polyvinyl alcohol has a glass transition temperature which is a softening point that is within a range of 65[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0037]) which contains the claimed range of 66[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 16 above, and further in view of Um (US 2014/0016196) and Ueno (US 2019/0049642).
Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, where the CTE of the polarizing plate comprising the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film and the TAC protective film, is desirably the CTE of the TAC protective film, which in this case, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C), even when measured under heat shock conditions, as described above.
Although Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, is silent as to whether the CTE of the TAC protective film and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate is measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, the units are for a linear coefficient of expansion which is conventionally measured in the direction which has the largest linear expansion, such that the CTE of the TAC protective film, and hence the CTE of the polarizing plate, as measured in a stretching direction of the polarizer, is 54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (5.4 x 10-5 cm/cm.[Symbol font/0xB0]C or less, which is within the claimed range of 100 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) or less.
Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, is silent regarding a CTE of the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film, and hence fails to teach a range of a CTE of the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film, measured under heat shock conditions, of the CTE of the polarizing plate comprising the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film, measured under heat shock conditions.
However, Morimoto, teaches that the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film has a thickness that is within a range of 9 µm or less, as described above.
Ueno teaches that a polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film (polyvinyl alcohol-based film ([0053]) desirably has a thickness of 6 µm or less, for the purpose of providing the desired reduction in dimensional change, resulting in high durability under heat shock conditions (thermal shock [0053], heat shock test in which -30[Symbol font/0xB0]C and 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C temperature conditions are repeated [0004]).
Um teaches that a CTE of a polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film can be within a range of 50 to 80 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) (ppm/[Symbol font/0xB0]C, very small amount of difference in thermal expansion coefficient [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film of the polarizing plate of Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, with a CTE that remains within a range of 50 to 80 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C), even when measured under heat shock conditions, in order to obtain the desired reduction in dimensional change, resulting in high durability under heat shock conditions, as taught by Um in light of Ueno.
Accordingly, Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, Ueno and Um, teaches that the CTE of the polarizer, is within a range of 92% to 148% of the CTE of the polarizing plate (50 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) x 100/54 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) to 80 µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C) x 100/54 ) µm/(m.[Symbol font/0xB0]C), when measured under heat shock conditions, which is within the claimed range of 50% to 250%, for the purpose of providing the desired reduction in dimensional change, resulting in high durability under heat shock conditions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto in view of Murakami, as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 16 above, and further in view of Ueno (US 2019/0049642)
Morimoto, as modified by Murakami, teaches the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer and the protective film formed on a surface of the polarizer, as described above. In addition, Morimoto teaches that the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol film (PVA-based resin layer, 1st para of page 5) which has a boric acid content (stretching in boric acid solution, 1st para of page 5), but fails to teach that the boric acid content is within a range of 15 wt% to 30 wt%.
However, Ueno teaches that a polyvinyl alcohol polarizer film has a boric acid content of 20 wt% ([0056], polyvinyl alcohol-based film [0055]) which is within the claimed range of 15 wt% to 30 wt%, for the purpose of providing the desired combination of stretching stability, optical durability and suppression of through cracks ([0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time, to have provided the polarizer of the polarizing plate of Morimoto, with a boric acid content that is within a range of 15 wt% to 30 wt%, in order to obtain the desired combination of stretching stability, optical durability and suppression of through cracks, as taught by Ueno.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding claims 1-8, 16 have been considered but are moot because of the new primary combination of references in the new grounds of rejection.
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 should be directed to Sow-Fun Hon whose telephone number is (571)272-1492. The examiner is on a flexible schedule but can usually be reached during a regular work week between the hours of 10:00 AM and 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached at (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 Center (https://patentcenter.uspto.gov). Should you have any questions on the Patent Center 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.
/Sophie Hon/
Sow-Fun Hon
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights