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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are pending in the current application.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0055] recites “the average value and standard deviation of the orientation angles will be described with reference to FIGS. 4, 5A, and 5B.” However, amendments to the drawings filed April 8, 2024 removed original Figures 1 and 5A, and renumbered the remaining drawings in sequence 1-9. There are currently no figures labeled as 5A and 5B. Therefore, the references to Figures 5A and 5B are objected to, and [0055] should likely be amended to instead recite “the average value and standard deviation of the orientation angles will be described with reference to FIGS. 3 and 4
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 13, and 15 are indefinite as the recitation of possible elements is not properly claimed in the alternative. Treatment of claims reciting alternatives is not governed by the particular format used (e.g., alternatives may be set forth as "a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "wherein the material is A, B, or C"). See, e.g., the Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications ("Supplementary Guidelines"), 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7166 (February 9, 2011). Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. If a claim is intended to encompass combinations or mixtures of the alternatives set forth in the Markush grouping, the claim may include qualifying language preceding the recited alternatives (such as "at least one member" selected from the group), or within the list of alternatives (such as "or mixtures thereof"). Id. at 1281. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
For the purposes of examination, claim 5 is interpreted as instead reciting “at least one selected from among the group consisting of titanium oxide, …, and potassium titanate.” Alternatively, claim 5 could be amended to recite “at least one selected from among titanium oxide, …, or potassium titanate” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 13 is interpreted as instead reciting “at least one selected from among the group consisting of compounds represented by Formulas 2 and 3.” Alternatively, claim 13 could be amended to recite “at least one selected from among compounds represented by Formulas 2 or 3” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
For the purposes of examination, claim 15 is interpreted as instead reciting “at least one selected from among the group consisting of a protective layer, …, and a functional coating layer.” Alternatively, claim 15 could be amended to recite “at least one selected from among a protective layer, …, or a functional coating layer” to overcome the aforementioned deficiency.
Correction is required.
Claim 16 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, since this claim depends from the claims rejected above and does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (WO 2014103684 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2006/0014085 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Murayama teaches a polarizing plate comprising a polarizer, adhesive layers formed on each side of the polarizer, and first and second transparent protective films bonded on each side of the polarizer by the adhesive layers (Murayama, Abstract, [0001], [0010], [0021]-[0026]). Murayama teaches the second transparent protective film can be a phase difference/contrast plate and the adhesive layer that bonds it can provide optical properties (i.e., optically functional layers) (Murayama, [0043]-[0056]). Murayama teaches the adhesive layer is a (meth)acryl-based layer comprising a radical polymerizable compound, a monomer with two or more carbon-carbon double bonds such as ethylene oxide-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate (i.e., an alkylene glycol group-containing matrix compound), and additives such as inorganic fillers (Murayama, [0056]-[0074]).
Murayama remains silent regarding anisotropic particles comprising acicular particles being aligned with respect to a light absorption axis.
Nakajima, however, teaches an anisotropic light diffusion adhesive layer for an optical laminated assembly, where the adhesive layer can be adhered to a polarization element or a phase difference element (Nakajima, Abstract, [0001], [0015]-[0020]). Nakajima teaches the adhesive layer comprises a (meth)acryl-based material and acicular fillers that are accurately oriented in a same direction in an in-plane direction to manifest anisotropic diffusion functionality (i.e., are aligned in a direction with respect to a light absorption axis of a polarizer) (Nakajima, [0025]-[0038], [0047]-[0062], [0072]-[0073], [0084]-[0087], Figs 2A-4A).
Since Murayama and Nakajima both disclose (meth)acryl-based adhesive layers comprising additives for polarizing laminates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed Murayama’s adhesive layer according to the guidance of Nakajima with accurately oriented acicular fillers to yield an adhesive layer that exhibits anisotropic light diffusion functionality, high optical transparency, high reliability, economic cheapness/viability, enlargement of viewing angle, and elimination of bright and dark lines as taught by Nakajima (Nakajima, [0015], [0047], [0056], [0062], [0073], [0103]-[0104]).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Murayama teaches the second transparent protective film can be a phase difference/contrast plate and the adhesive layer that bonds it can provide optical properties (i.e., contrast and visibility layers) (Murayama, [0043]-[0056]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Murayama teaches the adhesive layer comprises flat upper and lower surfaces (Nakajima, [0025]-[0028], [0034]-[0036], [0095]-[0100], Figs 2A-4A).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Murayama teaches the acicular fillers have a long dimension size of preferably 10 to 300 μm, and a short dimension size of 0.3 to 5 μm (i.e., are micro-scale particles) (Nakajima, [0054]-[0062]).
Regarding Claim 5, modified Murayama teaches the acicular fillers are made from titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, boehmite, aluminum borate, calcium silicate, magnesium sulfate, calcium carbonate, or potassium titanate (Nakajima, [0055]).
Regarding Claim 6, modified Murayama teaches the acicular fillers are included in an amount of preferably 5 to 45 mass percent (Nakajima, [0062]; Murayama, [0074]). Modified Murayama’s content range overlaps the claimed range of 1-30 wt%, and therefore, renders obvious the claimed range (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Murayama teaches the acicular fillers are impregnated within the (meth)acryl-based layer composition (Nakajima, [0047]-[0062], Figs 2A-4A).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, 12, and 13, modified Murayama teaches the ethylene oxide-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate is a monomer (required by claim 12) that includes an alkylene glycol group that satisfies Formula 1 of claim 10, an ethylene oxide group -(-O-CH2CH2-)- of claim 11, and Formula 2 of claim 13 (Murayama, [0069]).
PNG
media_image1.png
112
276
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ethylene oxide-modified trimethylolpropane triacrylate
Regarding Claim 14, modified Murayama teaches the ethylene oxide-modified trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate is included in an amount of 5-70 wt% (Murayama, [0069]-[0070]). Modified Murayama’s amount falls within the claimed range of 3-90 wt%, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Murayama teaches the polarizing plate comprises first and second transparent protective layers, where a functional layer/film can be applied to surfaces of the protective layers (Murayama, Abstract, [0001], [0010], [0021]-[0026], [0055], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Murayama teaches the functional layer/film can be an anti-reflection layer (Murayama, [0055], [0084]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Murayama the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer, a first transparent protective layer and the adhesive layer (i.e., optically functional layer) stacked one side of the polarizer, and a second optical transparent protective layer on the opposing side of the polarizer (Murayama, [0075], [0084]-[0090], [0106]-[0111]). Modified Murayama teaches the layers can be arranged on either side of the polarizer (i.e., either on the light exiting surface or the light incidence surface) (Murayama, [0090], [0106]-[0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried layer configurations that render obvious the claimed configurations from the finite number of possibilities disclosed by modified Murayama with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Murayama the polarizing plate comprising the polarizer; a functional layer/film, a first transparent protective layer, and the adhesive layer (i.e., optically functional layer) stacked one side of the polarizer; and a second optical transparent protective layer on the opposing side of the polarizer (Murayama, [0055], [0075], [0084]-[0090], [0106]-[0111]). Modified Murayama teaches the layers can be arranged on either side of the polarizer (i.e., either on the light exiting surface or the light incidence surface) (Murayama, [0090], [0106]-[0107]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected and to have tried layer configurations that render obvious the claimed configurations from the finite number of possibilities disclosed by modified Murayama with a predictable and reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143).
Regarding Claim 19, modified Murayama an optical display device/apparatus comprising the polarizing plate discussed above for claim 1 (Murayama, [0001], [0008], [0089]-[0090]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (WO 2014103684 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2006/0014085 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okumura et al. (JP 2009092796 A, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Murayama teaches the polarizing plates as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Murayama teaches the adhesive layer comprises the (meth)acryl-based material and the acicular fillers, where the acicular fillers are oriented in a same direction in an in-plane direction to manifest anisotropic diffusion functionality (i.e., are aligned in a direction with respect to a light absorption axis of a polarizer) (Nakajima, [0025]-[0038], [0047]-[0062], [0072]-[0073], [0084]-[0087], Figs 2A-4A).
Modified Murayama remains silent regarding the anisotropic acicular particles having an orientation angle with a light absorption axis of the polarizer within an average of -10o to 10o with a standard deviation of 15o or less.
Okumura, however, teaches a polarizer comprising a polymer resin and acicular particles, where the acicular particles are oriented parallel to a reflective/absorption direction of the polarizer (i.e., have an average of orientation angle of 0o) (Okumura, Abstract, Pgs 5-7). Okumura’s parallel orientation (orientation angle of 0o) falls within the claimed range of -10o to 10o with a standard deviation of 15o or less, and therefore, satisfies the claimed range (MPEP 2131.03).
Since modified Murayama and Okumura both disclose polarizer layers comprising acicular particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have oriented modified Murayama’s acicular fillers according to Okumura’s guidance to yield a polarizer that exhibits lower interference, high visible light reflectance, and improved light efficiency as taught by Okumura (Okumura, Pgs 5-7).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. (WO 2014103684 A1, herein English machine translation utilized for all citations) in view of Nakajima et al. (US 2006/0014085 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawabe et al. (US 2009/0185112 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Murayama teaches the polarizing plates as discussed above for claim 1. Modified Murayama teaches the acicular fillers are made from titanium oxide, zirconium oxide, boehmite, aluminum borate, calcium silicate, magnesium sulfate, calcium carbonate, or potassium titanate (Nakajima, [0055]).
Modified Murayama remains silent regarding the acicular particles being subjected to a surface modification.
Kawabe, however, teaches a protective film for polarizers comprising a polymer resin and additives, where the additives include acicular particles that are subjected to a surface treatment to provide slip properties and lower film haze (Kawabe, [0021]-[0024], [0179]-[0181]).
Since modified Murayama and Kawabe both disclose protective layers comprising additives for polarizing laminates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have surface treated modified Murayama’s acicular fillers according to Kawabe’s guidance to yield a acicular particles that exhibits slip properties and lower haze as taught by Kawabe (Kawabe, [0179]-[0181]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELI D STRAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7088. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 7 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Eli D. Strah/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights