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 .
Priority
In the previous Office Action, receipt was acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes, however, that Applicant’s latest filing included amendments to address multiple issues identified in the previous Office Action. Of these amendments were several unit corrections, from “W/cm2” to “W/m2”, throughout the application. Consequently, there are now multiple discrepancies between the active application and the priority documents that Applicant had claimed benefit to (i.e. which retain the “W/cm2” error). Applicant is thus advised that instant claims 1-15, reciting “W/m2”, may no longer be supported by the priority claims.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 1/16/2026.
Amendments to abstract, to the specification, and to claims 1 and 4, filed 1/16/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 13-15, filed 1/16/2026, are acknowledged and accepted.
Due to the amendments, all prior objections to the abstract, objections to the claims, and claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn.
Despite amendments to the specification, the objections to the specification are maintained, as Applicant has only partially addressed the informalities that Examiner identified in the Non-Final Rejection and has also introduced some new issues in their latest amendments. It appears also that Applicant has made no additional changes addressing any of the other issues that Applicant was informed may be present throughout the specification. More of these have been added to the updated objection below, though Applicant is again advised that this list of issues is not exhaustive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pg. 11 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Goto does not disclose the third coloring material of the amended claims. Examiner disagrees. See updated rejections below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 1/30/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The disclosure remains objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
In ¶ 24, lines 1-2; ¶ 64, lines 3-4; and ¶ 271, line 6, recited are "an ultraviolet shielding rate according to JIS L 1925" or "an ultraviolet shielding rate [...] in accordance with JIS L 1925”. As far as Examiner is aware, JIS L 1925 sets a measurement standard for textiles. However, it is not clear how textiles relate to the optical sheets of the present disclosure.
While the above issue A was already identified in the 10/30/2025 Non-Final Rejection, Applicant has not addressed them in their 1/16/2026 response. Instead, Applicant has amended ¶ 24 to read “the ultraviolet shielding rate in calculated… in ultraviolet region (290 to 400 nm)”, which is further improper (possible corrections:
“in calculated” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “is calculated”,
“in ultraviolet region” [Wingdings font/0xE0] “in the ultraviolet region”) and which makes reference to an equation (2) that is apparently not defined until much later in ¶ 249. Despite this, Applicant appears to have prematurely inserted it into ¶ 24.
In ¶ 53, lines 1-2 recite “As the first to third coloring materials, there can be used a coloring material that contains one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of a compound having any of…”, which is verbose and redundant, as well as grammatically ambiguous due to awkward/improper construction that renders the statement unclear.
In Tables 7 and 8, variables ΔTλ and ΔEab are not consistent with those defined in the remaining specification – e.g. in ¶ 252.
Examiner notes that this list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Applicant is further advised that, in response to the above objections, a substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the number or nature of the amendments through multiple rounds of revision will render it difficult to consider the application, 37 CFR 1.125.
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, line 20 includes apparently improper double bracketed text “[[RH]]” – which should indicate deleted text per 37 CFR 1.121, despite claim 14 being a completely new claim. Please ensure the double bracketed text is removed or amended over to avoid conflict with 37 CFR 1.121.
In claim 15, lines 9-13, the labels and indentation levels of sub-limitations (i) and (i) are improper; the first sub-limitation (i) should begin on a new line with appropriate indentation matching the second (i), while the second (i) should actually be labeled (ii).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto and Yamai (JP 2019056865 A, hereinafter “Goto”) in view of Shouhi and Yoshida (US 20210025226 A1, hereinafter “Shouhi”).
Regarding claim 1, Goto discloses (see ¶s 25-27, 42-45) an optical sheet (“optical filter”), comprising:
a first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) containing an adhesive (“adhesive resin”) and a colorant (dye 1, 2, …), the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (note that one may always identify opposing first/second surfaces on any three-dimensional object); and
an ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) arranged to face the first surface of the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) (¶ 63 discloses a light-transmitting substrate for which “ultraviolet absorbing films can also be used”),
wherein
the colorant (dye 1, 2, …) contains:
a first coloring material (dye 1) having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of 470 to 530 nm and an absorption spectral half width of 15 to 45 nm (dye 1’s maximum is within 480-510 nm with a FWHM of 10-40 nm),
a third coloring material (dye 3) in which a wavelength having the lowest transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 to 800 nm is in a range of 650 to 800 nm (dye 3’s absorption maximum, or transmittance minimum, is within 650-710 nm),
in the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”), one of the absorption wavelength bands of the colorant includes a maximum absorption wavelength at which a transmittance is 1% or more and less than 50% (see also ¶s 125-137 and FIGs. 1-6, detailing various examples and spectral absorbances (A) which are related to transmittances (T) by the Beer-Lambert relation T = 10-A . Dyes 1 and 2, with absorbance peaks at 495 nm and 595 nm, have peak heights ranging from A ~ [0.5, 1], corresponding to T ~ [10-0.5, 10-1] ~ [32%, 10%] across the six examples provided with figures),
the ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) has an ultraviolet shielding rate defined as a difference between 100% and an average transmittance of the ultraviolet shielding layer in % in an ultraviolet region from 290 to 400 nm (which one can always define)
Goto does not disclose:
ΔE * ab, which is a chromaticity difference between before and after a light resistance test of irradiating for 120 hours with a xenon lamp having an illuminance at wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm of 60 W/m2 at a temperature of 45°C and a relative humidity of 50%, satisfies Equation (1) below:
ΔE * ab ≤ 5 Equation (1).
Goto and Shouhi commonly relate to wavelength-selective/absorptive optical stacks with adhesive and UV components.
Shouhi discloses (see ¶s 135-137, Table 1):
the ultraviolet shielding layer (“visible light absorbing layer” which “contains a UV absorber” per ¶ 39) has an ultraviolet shielding rate defined as a difference between 100% and an average transmittance of the ultraviolet shielding layer in % in an ultraviolet region from 290 to 400 nm (which one can always define), and
ΔE * ab, which is a chromaticity difference between before and after a light resistance test of irradiating for 120 hours with a xenon lamp having an illuminance at wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm of 60 W/m2 at a temperature of 45°C and a relative humidity of 50%, satisfies Equation (1) below:
ΔE * ab ≤ 5 Equation (1).
(see ¶ 136 describing light resistance tests with equal or more extreme testing conditions than those claimed – i.e. 500(>120) hours, a xenon light/lamp emitting 300 to 400 nm, an irradiance of 180(>60) W/m2, temperatures of 50(>45)°C, relative humidities of 50% – and Table 1 providing corresponding ΔE( * ab) values of (1.5-2) < 5 across Examples 1-6. One would thus expect that the above limitation claimed for ΔE * ab continues hold under conditions less demanding/extreme than those disclosed by Shouhi.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Goto and Shouhi, in order to prevent reduction in light performance in strong lighting conditions (Shouhi Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto further discloses wherein the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) contains at least one of a radical scavenger, a peroxide decomposer, and a singlet oxygen quencher. (¶ 48 lists antioxidants as optional additives for the adhesive layer)
Regarding claim 5, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto further discloses wherein the colorant (dye 1, 2, …) contained in the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) includes one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of a compound having any of porphyrin structure, merocyanine structure, phthalocyanine structure, azo structure, cyanine structure, squarylium structure, coumarin structure, polyene structure, quinone structure, tetraazaporphyrin structure, pyrromethene structure, and indigo structure, and a metal complex thereof. (Per ¶s 43-44:
“Azo compounds, cyanine compounds, pyrazole squarylium compounds, porphyrin compounds, dipyrromethene metal chelate compounds, pyrromethene compounds,… , etc. can be used as dye 1.",
“examples of dye 2... include cyanine compounds, phthalocyanine compounds, squarylium compounds,… , azo compounds, quinone compounds,… , porphyrin compounds, tetraazaporphyrin compounds, azaporphyrin compounds,… , dithiol metal complex compounds, pyrromethene compounds,… Compounds, coumarin compounds, … , nickel azo complex compounds, … , indigoid compounds,… dipyrromethene compounds,… squarylium compounds,… , azo metal complex compounds,… , etc. can be used”)
Regarding claim 6, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Shouhi further discloses wherein the ultraviolet shielding layer (“visible light absorbing layer”) is a second adhesive layer that contains an adhesive and an ultraviolet absorber (note the following excerpts:
¶ 39: “the visible light absorbing layer preferably further contains a UV absorber”
¶ 53: “the visible light absorbing layer preferably further contains an adhesion modifier. The adhesion modifier contained adjusts the adhesive force of the visible light absorbing layer”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto further discloses wherein the ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) is a transparent substrate. (¶ 63 discloses a light-transmitting substrate for which “ultraviolet absorbing films can also be used”)
Regarding claim 9, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto also discloses the further comprising, as a layer above the ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”), an optical function layer ("optical functional layer" or “other layer”) that reduces reflection of incident external light, wherein the optical function layer ("optical functional layer" or “other layer”) includes at least one of
an anti-reflection layer that contains a high refractive index layer and a low refractive index layer,
an anti-reflection layer that contains a high refractive index layer and an anti-glare layer,
an anti-reflection layer that contains a high refractive index layer, an anti- glare layer, and a low refractive index layer, and
an anti-reflection layer that contains an anti-glare layer.
(See ¶s 25, 72-83 and note the following:
Goto describes a "Configuration 3" in which "Adhesive layer/other layer/substrate" are arranged. Such “other layers” may encompass "a hard coat layer,... a light diffusion [commonly used to for antiglare] layer, a low reflection [i.e. antireflection] layer, an antifouling layer, an antistatic layer, ... an electromagnetic wave shielding layer" as noted in ¶ 73.
Goto further elaborates in describing "optical functional layers" which may be “at least one functional layer selected from the group consisting of an anti-reflection layer, a hard coat layer, an anti-glare layer, an anti-fouling layer,... an electromagnetic wave shielding layer" and "contain the above-mentioned substrate" as noted in ¶ 78 and detailed thereafter.
¶ 79 provides alternating high-/low-index layers for the anti-reflection functional layer)
Regarding claim 10, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto also discloses the further comprising an anti-static layer or an anti-fouling layer. (See ¶s 25, 72-83 and note the following:
Goto describes a "Configuration 3" in which "Adhesive layer/other layer/substrate" are arranged. Such “other layers” may encompass "a hard coat layer,... a light diffusion layer, a low reflection layer, an antifouling layer, an antistatic layer ... an electromagnetic wave shielding layer" as noted in ¶ 73.
Goto further elaborates in describing "optical functional layers" which may be “at least one functional layer selected from the group consisting of an anti-reflection layer, a hard coat layer, an anti-glare layer, an anti-fouling layer,... an electromagnetic wave shielding layer" as noted in ¶ 78 and detailed thereafter.)
Regarding claim 11, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 9.
Goto further discloses wherein
at least one of the high refractive index layer, the anti-glare layer, and the low refractive index layer further has anti-static properties, and
at least one of the high refractive index layer, the anti-glare layer, and the low refractive index layer further has anti-fouling properties.
(Refer again to ¶s 25, 72-83 – cited in regards to the earlier claim 9. As evident from the cited excerpts, Goto supports all of the above claimed anti-glare, high-/low-index, anti-fouling, and anti-static features simultaneously (¶ 78: “the optical functional layer is a film having at least one functional layer selected from the group...”) and also supports multifunctionality of a given layer (¶ 78: “The optical functional layer may have not only one type of function per layer, but also a plurality of functions…”) )
Regarding claim 12, modified Goto discloses a display device comprising the optical sheet (“optical filter”) of claim 1 (see, e.g., Title, Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto further discloses (see ¶s 25-27, 42-45) wherein the colorant (dye 1, 2, …) further comprises a second coloring material (dye 2) having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of 560 to 620 nm and an absorption spectral half width of 15 to 55 nm (dye 2’s maximum is within 580-610 nm with a FWHM of 10-30 nm).
Regarding claim 14, Goto discloses (see ¶s 25-27, 42-45) an optical sheet (“optical filter”), comprising:
a first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) containing an adhesive (“adhesive resin”) and a colorant (dye 1, 2, …), the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (note that one may always identify opposing first/second surfaces on any three-dimensional object); and
an ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) arranged to face the first surface of the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) (¶ 63 discloses a light-transmitting substrate for which “ultraviolet absorbing films can also be used”),
wherein
the colorant (dye 1, 2, …) contains:
a second coloring material (dye 2) having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of 560 to 620 nm and an absorption spectral half width of 15 to 55 nm (dye 2’s maximum is within 580-610 nm with a FWHM of 10-30 nm), and
a third coloring material (dye 3) in which a wavelength having the lowest transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 to 800 nm is in a range of 650 to 800 nm (dye 3’s absorption maximum, or transmittance minimum, is within 650-710 nm),
in the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”), one of the absorption wavelength bands of the colorant includes a maximum absorption wavelength at which a transmittance is 1% or more and less than 50% (see also ¶s 125-137 and FIGs. 1-6, detailing various examples and spectral absorbances (A) which are related to transmittances (T) by the Beer-Lambert relation T = 10-A . Dyes 1 and 2, with absorbance peaks at 495 nm and 595 nm, have peak heights ranging from A ~ [0.5, 1], corresponding to T ~ [10-0.5, 10-1] ~ [32%, 10%] across the six examples provided with figures),
the ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) has an ultraviolet shielding rate defined as a difference between 100% and an average transmittance of the ultraviolet shielding layer in % in an ultraviolet region from 290 to 400 nm (which one can always define)
Goto does not disclose:
ΔE * ab, which is a chromaticity difference between before and after a light resistance test of irradiating for 120 hours with a xenon lamp having an illuminance at wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm of 60 W/m2 at a temperature of 45°C and a relative humidity of 50%, satisfies Equation (1) below:
ΔE * ab ≤ 5 Equation (1).
Goto and Shouhi commonly relate to wavelength-selective/absorptive optical stacks with adhesive and UV components.
Shouhi discloses (see ¶s 135-137, Table 1):
the ultraviolet shielding layer (“visible light absorbing layer” which “contains a UV absorber” per ¶ 39) has an ultraviolet shielding rate defined as a difference between 100% and an average transmittance of the ultraviolet shielding layer in % in an ultraviolet region from 290 to 400 nm (which one can always define)
ΔE * ab, which is a chromaticity difference between before and after a light resistance test of irradiating for 120 hours with a xenon lamp having an illuminance at wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm of 60 W/m2 at a temperature of 45°C and a relative humidity of 50%, satisfies Equation (1) below:
ΔE * ab ≤ 5 Equation (1).
(see ¶ 136 describing light resistance tests with equal or more extreme testing conditions than those claimed – i.e. 500(>120) hours, a xenon light/lamp emitting 300 to 400 nm, an irradiance of 180(>60) W/m2, temperatures of 50(>45)°C, relative humidities of 50% – and Table 1 providing corresponding ΔE( * ab) values of (1.5-2) < 5 across Examples 1-6. One would thus expect that the above limitation claimed for ΔE * ab continues hold under conditions less demanding/extreme than those disclosed by Shouhi.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Goto and Shouhi, in order to prevent reduction in light performance in strong lighting conditions (Shouhi Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Goto discloses (see ¶s 25-27, 42-45) an optical sheet (“optical filter”), comprising:
a first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) containing an adhesive (“adhesive resin”) and a colorant (dye 1, 2, …), the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) having a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface (note that one may always identify opposing first/second surfaces on any three-dimensional object); and
an ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) laminated on the first surface of the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”) (¶ 63 discloses a light-transmitting substrate for which “ultraviolet absorbing films can also be used”),
wherein
the colorant (dye 1, 2, …) contains:
(a) a first coloring material (dye 1) having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of 470 to 530 nm and an absorption spectral half width of 15 to 45 nm (dye 1’s maximum is within 480-510 nm with a FWHM of 10-40 nm), and
(b) one or both of
(i) a second coloring material (dye 2) having a maximum absorption wavelength in a range of 560 to 620 nm and an absorption spectral half width of 15 to 55 nm (dye 2’s maximum is within 580-610 nm with a FWHM of 10-30 nm), and
(i) a third coloring material (dye 3) in which a wavelength having the lowest transmittance in a wavelength range of 400 to 800 nm is in a range of 650 to 800 nm (dye 3’s absorption maximum, or transmittance minimum, is within 650-710 nm),
in the first adhesive layer (“adhesive layer”), one of the absorption wavelength bands of the colorant includes a maximum absorption wavelength at which a transmittance is 1% or more and less than 50% (see also ¶s 125-137 and FIGs. 1-6, detailing various examples and spectral absorbances (A) which are related to transmittances (T) by the Beer-Lambert relation T = 10-A . Dyes 1 and 2, with absorbance peaks at 495 nm and 595 nm, have peak heights ranging from A ~ [0.5, 1], corresponding to T ~ [10-0.5, 10-1] ~ [32%, 10%] across the six examples provided with figures),
the ultraviolet shielding layer (“light-transmitting substrate”) has an ultraviolet shielding rate defined as a difference between 100% and an average transmittance of the ultraviolet shielding layer in % in an ultraviolet region from 290 to 400 nm (which one can always define), and
Goto does not disclose:
ΔE * ab, which is a chromaticity difference between before and after a light resistance test of irradiating for 120 hours with a xenon lamp having an illuminance at wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm of 60 W/m2 at a temperature of 45°C and a relative humidity of 50%, satisfies Equation (1) below:
ΔE * ab < 5 Equation (1).
Goto and Shouhi commonly relate to wavelength-selective/absorptive optical stacks with adhesive and UV components.
Shouhi discloses (see ¶s 135-137, Table 1):
the ultraviolet shielding layer (“visible light absorbing layer” which “contains a UV absorber” per ¶ 39) has an ultraviolet shielding rate defined as a difference between 100% and an average transmittance of the ultraviolet shielding layer in % in an ultraviolet region from 290 to 400 nm (which one can always define), and
ΔE * ab, which is a chromaticity difference between before and after a light resistance test of irradiating for 120 hours with a xenon lamp having an illuminance at wavelengths of 300 to 400 nm of 60 W/m2 at a temperature of 45°C and a relative humidity of 50%, satisfies Equation (1) below:
ΔE * ab ≤ 5 Equation (1).
(see ¶ 136 describing light resistance tests with equal or more extreme testing conditions than those claimed – i.e. 500(>120) hours, a xenon light/lamp emitting 300 to 400 nm, an irradiance of 180(>60) W/m2, temperatures of 50(>45)°C, relative humidities of 50% – and Table 1 providing corresponding ΔE( * ab) values of (1.5-2) < 5 across Examples 1-6. One would thus expect that the above limitation claimed for ΔE * ab continues hold under conditions less demanding/extreme than those disclosed by Shouhi.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Goto and Shouhi, in order to prevent reduction in light performance in strong lighting conditions (Shouhi Abstract).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Shouhi, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Yoshikawa et al (JP 2018136361 A, hereinafter “Yoshikawa”)
Regarding claim 3, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 2.
Shouhi further discloses wherein the radical scavenger is a hindered amine photostabilizer (¶ 40 “The UV absorber is not limited, and examples thereof include... compounds having a hindered amine structure.”).
Modified Goto does not explicitly disclose a hindered amine photostabilizer having a molecular weight of 2,000 or more.
Goto and Yoshikawa commonly relate to wavelength-selective/ absorptive optical stacks with adhesive and UV components.
Yoshikawa discloses a hindered amine photostabilizer having a molecular weight of 2,000 or more. (See ¶ 117 providing various examples of hindered amine compounds with molecular weights ranging from 1000 to 4000.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Goto and Yoshikawa, in order to implement antioxidants with good compatibility and heat resistance (Yoshikawa ¶ 117).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Shouhi, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Okuma and Asahi (JP 2011141356 A, hereinafter “Okuma”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 2.
Modified Goto does not disclose wherein the singlet oxygen quencher is a transition metal complex of dialkyl phosphate, dialkyl dithiocarbamate, or benzene dithiol or similar dithiol.
Goto and Okuma commonly relate to wavelength-selective/absorptive optical stacks with adhesive and UV components.
Okuma discloses wherein the singlet oxygen quencher is a transition metal complex of dialkyl phosphate, dialkyl dithiocarbamate, or benzene dithiol or similar dithiol. (¶s 99-101 provides various examples of singlet oxygen quenchers, including those currently claimed.)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further combine the teachings of Goto and Okuma, in order to enhance heat and light resistance (Okuma ¶ 17).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto in view of Shouhi, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kobashi et al (JP 2019008294 A, hereinafter “Kobashi”)
Regarding claim 8, modified Goto discloses the optical sheet of claim 1.
Goto does not disclose the further comprising an oxygen barrier layer having an oxygen permeability of 10 cc/(m2-day-atm) or less, the oxygen barrier layer being arranged to face the first surface of the first adhesive layer.
Goto and Kobashi are related as being directed towards wavelength-selective/absorptive optical stacks with adhesive and UV components.
Kobashi discloses (see FIGs. 2-4, ¶s 122) the further comprising an oxygen barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) having an oxygen permeability of 10 cc/(m2-day-atm) or less, the oxygen barrier layer (oxygen shielding layer 20) being arranged to face the first surface of the first adhesive layer (adhesive layer 30a). (See also ¶ 11 reciting preferred oxygen permeabilities ≤ 50 cc/(m2 day atm), encompassing the claimed range; Table 1 further provides values < 10 cc/(m2 day atm))
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Goto and Kobashi, in order to suppress deterioration due to short-wavelength light (Kobashi ¶ 11).
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 WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights