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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings with 1 Sheets of Figs. 1-2 received on 1/16/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “COP” and “COC” in line 3 which seem to be acronyms. It is suggested to be replaced with –copolymer (COP)—and –cyclic olefin copolymer (COC)--.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4-5,18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR 2019-0076792) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Choi teaches (fig 1) a polarizing plate polarizing late 10, para 33) comprising:
a polarizer (polarizing film 300, para 33); and
a stack of retardation layers (phase difference films 100,200, para 33) formed on at least one surface of the polarizer (300),
wherein the stack of retardation layers comprises a second retardation layer (second phase difference film 200, para 33), a primer layer (primer layer, para 101, “In the laminated phase difference film, the second phase difference film and the first phase difference film can be laminated by at least one of an adhesive layer, an adhesive layer, and a primer layer”, para 101), and
a first retardation layer (first phase difference film 100, para 33) stacked in sequence on the polarizer (polarizing film 300, para 33), and
the primer layer is a (meth)acrylate-based primer layer (“The primer layer can be formed of a composition including at least one of a (meth)acrylic resin”, para 102).
However, Choi does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature of 60°C to 150°C.
Choi and Yoda are related as primer layers.
Yoda teaches
the primer layer (primer layer 2, para 56) has a glass transition temperature of 60°C to 150°C (“a polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 60° C. or more”, “polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 80° C. or more, more preferably a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 100° C. or more”, para 56).
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 the primer of Choi to include the primer with glass transition temperature of Yoda for the purpose of further improvement in adhesiveness (para 56).
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature of 60°C to 150°C.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0072] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 60°C or more. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Choi-Yoda to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures for the purposes of improved adhesiveness at environmental temperatures.
Regarding Claim 2, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
However, Choi does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature of 60°C to 90°C.
Choi and Yoda are related as primer layers.
Yoda teaches
the primer layer (primer layer 2, para 56) has a glass transition temperature of 60°C to 90°C (“a polyester type resin having a glass-transition temperature (Tg) of 60° C. or more”, para 56).
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 the primer of Choi to include the primer with glass transition temperature of Yoda for the purpose of further improvement in adhesiveness (para 56).
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
the primer layer has a glass transition temperature of 60°C to 90°C.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0072] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 60° C or more. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Choi-Yoda to have the claimed range of glass transition temperatures for the purposes of improved adhesiveness at environmental temperatures.
Regarding Claim 4, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the primer layer (primer layer 2, para 56) is formed directly on each of the first retardation layer and the second retardation layer (phase difference films 100,200, para 33) (as in fig 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the primer layer (primer layer 2, para 56) is a (meth)acrylate-based primer layer not modified with a styrene based compound (“The primer layer can be formed of a composition including at least one of a (meth)acrylic resin, a urethane resin, and a urethane (meth)acrylic resin”, para 102) or a (meth)acrylate-based primer layer modified with a styrene based compound.
Regarding Claim 18, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1,
herein the second retardation layer (phase difference film 200, para 33, Choi) is a positive C layer (“The second phase difference film (200) may be a positive C plate”, para 38), and the first retardation layer(phase difference film 100, para 33) is a positive A layer (“The first phase difference film (100) may be a positive A plate”, para 85).
Regarding Claim 19, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1,
wherein the stack of retardation layers (phase difference films 100,200, para 33, Choi) is formed on a light incidence surface (light incidence from the display device)of the polarizer (polarizer film 300, para 33) (“The second phase difference film (200) can be placed on the light-emitting surface of the first phase difference film (100) when external light, such as sunlight, is incident on the polarizing film (300)”, para 37).
Regarding Claim 20, Choi-Yoda teaches the optical display apparatus (display device, para 17, Choi) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
7. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR 2019-0076792) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1) and further in view of Jeong et al (US 2016/0370508 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein a peel strength between the first retardation layer and the second retardation layer is 300 gf/25 mm or greater.
Choi-Yoda and Jeong are related as primer layers.
Jeong teaches (fig 2)
wherein a peel strength between layers (polarizer 110 and adhesive layer 140, para 30) is 300 gf/25 mm or greater (“the first adhesive layer 130 may have a peel strength of about 1,000 gf/inch to about 1800 gf/inch”, para 45, 1000gf/inch to 1800gf/inch is ~ 1000gf/25mm to 1800gf/25mm)
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include the primer with glass transition temperature of Yoda for the purpose of further improvement in adhesiveness (para 56).
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
Peel strength is 300 gf/25 mm or greater.
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of peel strength, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0034] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 1000-1800gf/25mm. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Choi-Yoda to have the claimed range of peel strength for the purposes of improved adhesiveness and prevention of separation of the layers (para 45, Yoda).
Claim(s) 6-13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR 2019-0076792) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1) and further in view of Hintze et al (WO 95/28453).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the primer layer is formed of a primer layer composition comprising a copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of 10°C or greater.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the primer layer (priming plastic, para 7) is formed of a primer layer composition comprising a copolymer (copolymer, para 21) of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer (“mixture of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid”, para 23) having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of 10°C or greater (“glass transition temperature”, “preferably 10 to 80°C”, para 36)
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 7, Choi-Yoda-Hintze teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 6,
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the (meth)acrylic based monomer having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of 10°C or greater comprises at least one selected from among a (meth)acrylic acid ester containing a C1 to C10 alkyl group, a (meth)acrylic acid ester containing a C1 to C10 alkyl group having a hydroxyl group, and a (meth)acrylic acid ester containing a C5 to C10 alicyclic group.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the (meth)acrylic based monomer (“mixture of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid”, para 23) having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of 10°C or greater (“glass transition temperature”, “preferably 10 to 80°C”, para 36)
comprises at least one selected from among a (meth)acrylic acid ester containing a C1 to C10 alkyl group, a (meth)acrylic acid ester containing a C1 to C10 alkyl group having a hydroxyl group, and a (meth)acrylic acid ester containing a C5 to C10 alicyclic group (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include copolymer of a monomer mixture comprising a (meth)acrylic based monomer of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi-Yoda-Hintze teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 6.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the monomer mixture further comprises a peel strength-enhancing compound.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the monomer mixture (monomer, para 24) further comprises a peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 8.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound comprises at least one selected from among a (meth)a crylate based compound, an ester based compound, and a styrene based compound.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39). comprises at least one selected from among a (meth) acrylate based compound (meth acrylates, para 39), an ester based compound, and a styrene based compound.
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include a peel enhancing compound selected from among a (meth)a crylate based compound, an ester based compound, and a styrene based compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 10, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 9.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the ester based compound comprises at least one selected from among a formic acid ester compound, an acetic acid ester compound, and a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the ester based compound comprises at least one selected from among a formic acid ester compound, an acetic acid ester compound, and a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include ester based compound selected from a formic acid ester compound, an acetic acid ester compound, and a (meth)acrylic acid ester compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 11, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 10.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the ester based compound comprises at least one selected from among butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, cyclohexyl 2-methyl-propenoic ester, 2-methylcyclohexyl 2-propenoic ester, and isopropyl acetate.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the ester based compound comprises at least at least one selected from among butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, cyclohexyl 2-methyl-propenoic ester, 2-methylcyclohexyl 2-propenoic ester, and isopropyl acetate (“methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, hexyl, ethylhexyl, stearyl, lauryl, isobornyl, cyclohexyl and tert-butylcyclohexyl acrylate or methacrylate, hydroxyalkyl ester”, para 39).
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include ester based compound selected from among butyl acetic ester, butyl formic ester, cyclohexyl 2-methyl-propenoic ester, 2-methylcyclohexyl 2-propenoic ester, and isopropyl acetate of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
Regarding Claim 12, Choi-Yoda-Hintze teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 9.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the styrene based compound is present in an amount of greater than 0 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the monomer mixture.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the styrene based compound (“Styrene, α-alkylstyrene and vinyltoluene, amide-containing monomers”, para 39) is present in an amount of greater than 0 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the monomer mixture (“9.9 to 79.9 wt.%, preferably 15 to 45 wt.% of component (B)”, para 41)
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include styrene based compound of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
However, Choi-Yoda-Hintze does not teach styrene based compound is present in an amount of greater than 0 parts by weight to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the monomer mixture
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of weight percentage of styrene based compound, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0077] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 9.9 to 79.9 wt.%, The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Choi-Yoda-Hintze to have the claimed range of weight percentage of styrene based compound for the purposes of improved adhesiveness and prevention of separation of the layers (para 45, Yoda).
Regarding Claim 13, Choi-Yoda-Hintze teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 8.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the monomer mixture comprises 20 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight of the (meth)acrylic based monomer having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of 10°C or greater and 20 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight of the peel strength-enhancing compound.
Choi-Yoda and Hintze are related as primer layers.
Hintze teaches
wherein the monomer mixture comprises 20 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight (“20 to 90 wt.%”, “mixture (A)”, para 41) of the (meth)acrylic based monomer (“mixture of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid”, para 23) having a homopolymer glass transition temperature of 10°C or greater (“glass transition temperature”, “preferably 10 to 80°C”, para 36) and
20 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight (“9.9 to 79.9 wt.%”, “component (B)”, para 41) of the peel strength-enhancing compound (“esters of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, in particular aliphatic and cycloaliphatic acrylates or meth acrylates with up to 20 carbon atoms in the alcohol residue”, para 39).
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 the primer of Choi-Yoda to include monomer mixture of Hintze for the purpose of using easily accessible compounds for satisfactory adhesion (para 3,6).
However, Choi-Yoda-Hintze does not teach 20 parts by weight to 80 parts by weight of each of the (meth)acrylic based monomer and the the peel strength-enhancing compound
MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the claimed range of weight percentage of the monomer and peel enhancing compound, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
The instant application at paragraph [0077] does not disclose any criticality to the claimed range. The prior art discloses 20 to 90 wt. % and 9.9 to 79.9 wt.% for the monomer and the peel enhancing compound. The entire range would perform the same function. Because there is no allegation of criticality and no evidence of demonstrating a difference across the range, the prior art discloses the range with sufficient specificity. See MPEP section 2131.03.II. Clearview Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers Inc., 668 F.3d 340, 101 USPQ2d 1773 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Choi-Yoda-Hintze to have the claimed range of weight percentages of the methacrylic based monomer and the peel enhancing compound for the purposes of improved adhesiveness and prevention of separation of the layers (para 45, Yoda).
Claim(s) 14-15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR 2019-0076792) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1) and further in view of Koo et al (US 2021/0405273 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the second retardation layer has a higher glass transition temperature than the first retardation layer.
Choi-Yoda and Koo are related as polarization plates.
Koo teaches (fig 1)
wherein the second retardation layer (“the first retardation layer 30 may have a glass transition temperature of about 140° C”, para 106) has a higher glass transition temperature than the first retardation layer (“The second retardation layer 40 has a glass transition temperature of about 120° C”, para 71).
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 the retardation layers of Choi to have the second retardation layer have a greater glass transition temperature than the first retardation layer of Koo for the purpose of preventing light leakage while improving side contrast ratio (para 5).
Regarding Claim 15, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 14.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the second retardation layer has a glass transition temperature of 130°C or greater, and the first retardation layer has a glass transition temperature of 100°C or greater.
Choi-Yoda and Koo are related as polarization plates.
Koo teaches (fig 1)
wherein the second retardation layer has a glass transition temperature of 130°C or greater (“the first retardation layer 30 may have a glass transition temperature of about 140° C”, “140 to 200 ° C”, para 106), and the first retardation layer has a glass transition temperature of 100°C or greater (“The second retardation layer 40 has a glass transition temperature of about 120° C”, “120 to 150 ° C”, para 71).
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 the retardation layers of Choi to have the glass transition temperatures of the retardation layers of Koo for the purpose of preventing light leakage while improving side contrast ratio (para 5).
Claim(s) 16-17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al (KR 2019-0076792) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1) and Koo et al (US 2021/0405273 A1) and further in view of Koo et al (US 2021/00337768, hereafter Koo’768).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi-Yoda teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
However, Choi-Yoda does not teach
wherein the second retardation layer comprises a polystyrene based polymer, and the first retardation layer is a COP based film, a COC based film, or an acrylic based film.
Choi-Yoda and Koo are related as polarization plates.
Koo teaches
wherein the first retardation layer (“the second retardation layer 40”, para 71) is a COP based film (COP, para 86).
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 the retardation layers of Choi to have the glass transition temperatures of the retardation layers of Koo for the purpose of preventing light leakage while improving side contrast ratio (para 5).
However, Choi-Yoda-Koo do not teach
the second retardation layer comprises a polystyrene based polymer
Choi-Yoda-Koo and Koo’768 are related as retardation layers.
Koo’768 teaches (fig 1)
wherein the second retardation layer (second retardation layer 130, para 45) comprises a polystyrene based polymer (“the second retardation layer composition may include at least one of a cellulose ester and styrene (or polystyrene)”
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 the retardation layers of Choi-Yoda-Koo to have the second retardation layer comprises a polystyrene of Koo’768 for the purpose of using commonly known compounds in polarization plates with good effects (para 7).
Regarding Claim 17, Choi-Yoda-Koo-Koo’768 teaches the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 16.
However, Choi-Yoda-Koo do not teach
wherein the polystyrene based polymer contains a halogen.
Koo’768 teaches (fig 1)
wherein the polystyrene based polymer (“the second retardation layer composition may include at least one of a cellulose ester and styrene (or polystyrene)”) contains a halogen (“the styrene may be substituted or unsubstituted with at least one of a halogen”, para 86)
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 the retardation layers of Choi-Yoda-Koo to have the second retardation layer comprises a polystyrene with a halogen of Koo’768 for the purpose of using commonly known compounds in polarization plates with good effects (para 7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 2/7/2026