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
The amendments to Claim 16 in the submission filed 5/10/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
In view of the amendments to the Claims, objection to Claims is withdrawn.
Pending Claims are 1-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 5/10/2026) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Re: claim 1
a) Choi generally mentions that a primer layer may be used as one optional lamination medium between retardation films. However, such generic disclosure falls far short of teaching the primer layer required by Claim 1, namely, a stack of retardation layers comprising a second retardation layer, a primer layer, and a first retardation layer stacked in sequence on a polarizer, wherein the primer layer is a (meth)acrylate-based primer layer having a glass transition temperature of 60*C to 150*C.
Choi specifically recites that the first and second difference layers are laminated with a primer layer (para 101) and which is made of a methacrylic resin (para 102). It is not a general statement but has specificity that the two layers are laminated with the help of the primer layer.
b) Choi does not disclose a (meth)acrylate-based primer layer having the recited glass transition temperature range, nor does Choi identify any reason to select such a primer from among numerous possible lamination media.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Choi teaches a primer which is a methacrylic resin (para 102). This resin encompasses methacrylate units. Yoda teaches that its common to have primers with glass transition temperature of 60°C or more which is overlapping with the claimed range of 60°C to 150°C. It would not be undue experimentation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to design a primer with methacrylate resin to have claimed range of glass transition temperatures. 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.
b) Choi is principally directed to reducing front reflectance, side reflectance, and color shift in OLED displays through optical compensation design. Choi does not recognize the problem addressed by Claim 1 of simultaneously achieving strong interlayer adhesion, low haze, high optical transparency, and long-term environmental durability between retardation layers.
Choi-Yoda teaches the claimed inventive structure with a polarizer and two retardation layers laminated with a methacrylate primer with the claimed glass transition temperature.
Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and would have strong interlayer adhesion, low haze, high optical transparency, and durability. See MPEP § 2112.01.
The claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
c) Yoda addresses adhesion behavior in a thermal transfer context. In contrast, the present claims concern a polarizing plate in which a primer layer is disposed between optical retardation layers. These are materially different interface environments. A substrate-to-peel layer interface in printing media differs substantially from a retardation-layer-to-retardation-layer interface with respect to surface energy, modulus mismatch, optical clarity requirements, dimensional stability, and thermal behavior. Although Yoda generally mentions adhesion improvement, such generalized teaching does not reasonably suggest that its primer concepts would be suitable for Applicant's specialized optical laminate structure.
Applicant’s arguments of the unworkability of the combination, due to materially different interface environments, appear to be based on a literal application of the actual structure of the primer of Yoda to the actual structure of Choi. However, that is not the proper standard for the analysis required under 35 USC 103(a). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Keller at 881, goes on to revisit the long history of the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) regarding the nature of suggestion established by the combined teachings of the references rather than the actual results of a physical, bodily incorporation:
To justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the other. In re Griver, 53 CCPA 815, 354, F.2d 377, 148 USPQ 197 (1966); In re Billingsley, 47 CCPA 1108, 279 F.2d 689, 126 USPQ 370 (1960). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 202 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1979); In re Passal, 57 CCPA 1151, 426 F.2d 828, 165 USPQ 720 (1970); In re Richman, 57 CCPA 1060, 424 F.2d 1388, 165 USPQ 509 (1970); In re Rosselet, 52 CCPA 1533, 347 F.2d 847, 146 USPQ 183 (1965).
Choi teaches a polarizing plate with a polarizer, a stack of retardation layers and a primer which is a methacrylic resin (para 102) which encompasses methacrylate units. Yoda teaches a primer with glass transition temperature of 60°C or more which is overlapping with the claimed range of 60°C to 150°C.The structure taught in the combined teachings of the references, as set forth is a polarizing plate. Because the structure of the combined system is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function of a polarizing plate. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Further, for a person of ordinary skill, experimentation with the type of primer to be utilized for a retardation stack with the claimed glass transition temperatures and strong interlayer adhesion, low haze and high transparency, is within the ordinary skill and does not require undue experimentation to design it. Yoda teaches that it is common to have primers with glass transition temperature in the claimed range which promote strong adhesion between layers and Choi’s primer can be modified with such a primer to achieve the claimed invention.
d) the mere use of the same term "primer layer" in different references does not establish technical equivalence or interchangeability. Primer layer is a context-dependent functional term broadly used to describe a preparatory interfacial layer whose composition, thickness, and intended function vary substantially depending on the application. For example, primers used in coating systems, furniture or building materials, thermal transfer media, and optical laminates may all bear the same name while serving very different purposes and being formulated from very different chemistries. A primer for printing media or coating substrates is not automatically suitable for an optical retardation-layer interface requiring transparency, haze control, dimensional stability, and compatibility with adjacent optical films.
Yoda’s primer layer was combined with Choi’s polarizing plate as the combined teachings of the references suggest to those of ordinary skill in the art that it is obvious to have a polarizing plate with a polarizer, a stack of retardation layers and a primer which is a methacrylic resin with a glass transition temperature of the claimed range.
Further, Yoda’s primer layer has a common primary function and purpose (“improvement in adhesiveness”, para 56, Yoda) as Choi’s primer layer and both promote adhesion between layers.
Yoda’s primer layer is not being physically inserted into Choi’s polarizing plate, but it is merely suggesting that Choi’s primer layer can be designed to have glass transition temperature in the claimed range by a person of ordinary skill. Yoda’s primer is solving the same problem of adhesiveness between layers as Choi’s primer and hence can be combined with Choi.
e) the claimed glass transition temperature range is critical and not the result of routine optimization. Examples 1-4, which employ (meth)acrylate-based primer layers having Tg values within the claimed range, exhibited peel strengths of 300 gf/25 mm or greater and favorable reliability performance. In contrast, Comparative Examples 8-11, which employed closely related primer systems having Tg values below the claimed lower limit, failed to achieve the same level of performance and did not exhibit the reliability demonstrated by the claimed examples. These results show that the claimed lower bound of 60°C is a meaningful performance threshold rather than an arbitrary numerical selection. The Specification further shows that merely selecting any primer layer is insufficient, and that the combination of the claimed (meth)acrylate-based chemistry together with the claimed Tg range provides the advantageous properties recited above.
Applicant's assertion that the claimed range is critical is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01(c).
Choi teaches a methacrylic based resin. The Examples 1-4 and comparative Examples 8-11 merely show expected beneficial results as a result of routine optimization. They do not show evidence of unexpected properties.
The expected beneficial results are also suggested by prior art Hintze et al which discloses (para 23,36) that the primer layer made of a methacrylic resin has a monomer with glass transition temperatures 10°C or greater and leads to improvement in adhesion. The current specification and claims state that the methacrylic resin has a monomer with glass transition temperatures 10°C or greater and leads to better adhesion as in Examples 1-4. Hence improvement in properties is expected and not unexpected in the claimed range and hence the range is not a critical range.
Hence in view of the above arguments the rejection is upheld.
Claims 1-20 are rejected as follows:
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, of record) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1, of record).
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, of record) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1, of record) and further in view of Jeong et al (US 2016/0370508 A1, of record).
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, of record) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1, of record) and further in view of Hintze et al (WO 95/28453, of record).
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, of record) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1, of record) and further in view of Koo et al (US 2021/0405273 A1, of record).
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, of record) in view of Yoda et al (US 2018/0065393 A1, of record) and Koo et al (US 2021/0405273 A1, of record) and further in view of Koo et al (US 2021/00337768, hereafter Koo’768, of record).
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 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
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 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 07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights