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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiwara (KR-20200008608-A, See attached Espacenet Machine Translation) in view of Ying (TW-I788089-B, See attached Espacenet Machine Translation).
Re Claim 1, Sugiwara teaches, on Fig. 1 and Table 1 (examples 1-4) a polarizing plate comprising: a polarizer (anti-glare film 1, and anti glare layer 3 contains acrylic particles, which would polarize incident light) [Par 58]; and an optical stack (anti-glare film 1)[Par 21] on a surface of the polarizer, the optical stack comprising an antiglare layer (anti-glare film 1 comprises anti-glare layer 3) [Par 21], wherein the polarizing plate has an external haze of greater than 30% (Translated Table 1 below for antiglare layer 3 which acrylic particles comprise; external haze would be the difference between the total haze or “Haze” in the Figure below, and internal haze, thus the external haze for examples 1-4 from the table below is greater than 30%) [Par 190], an internal haze of less than 10% (Translated Table 1 Below: internal haze of examples 1-4 is less than 10 %), a 60 degree gloss of 10 GU or less (Translated Table 1 Below: gloss of examples 1-4 is less than 10% or 10 GU).
But Sugiwara does not explicitly disclose, wherein a 60 degree gloss-to-85 degree gloss ratio of 0.2 or less, wherein a ratio of specular component excluded (SCE) reflectance to specular component included (SCI) reflectance of the polarizing plate ranges from 0.5 to 1.0.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Ying teaches on Table , that it is desirable in antiglare layers for a 60 degree gloss-to-85 degree gloss ratio of 0.2 or less (Translation of Table 2 below: Examples 1, 3, and 6-9 have a ratio of 0.2 or less) .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Sugiwara with Ying in order to provide anti-flicker resistance, as taught by Ying [Par 26].
PNG
media_image1.png
334
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Google Translation of Sugiwara Figure 1
PNG
media_image2.png
414
608
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Google Translation of Table 2 of Ying
But Sugiwara in view of Ying does not explicitly disclose, wherein a ratio of specular component excluded (SCE) reflectance to specular component included (SCI) reflectance of the polarizing plate ranges from 0.5 to 1.0.
Optimizing the SCE to SCI reflectance ratio is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Ying teaches controlling SCI and SCE values [Par 15] and further teaches the ratio of SCI to SC [Par 15], as a variable which achieves a recognized result, of high anti-glare [Par 014].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting external haze and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize a ratio of specular component excluded (SCE) reflectance to specular component included (SCI) reflectance of the polarizing plate ranges from 0.5 to 1.0, in Sugiwara in view of Ying, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 2, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Ying further discloses on Table 2, wherein the polarizing plate has an 85 degree gloss of 50 GU or less (85 degree gloss in examples 1, 3, and 6-9 are less than 50% or 50 GU).
Re Claim 3, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Sugiwara further discloses, wherein the polarizing plate has an external haze-to-internal haze ratio of 5 or greater ( Translated Table 1 below: external haze is the difference between the total haze or “Haze” in the Figure below, and internal haze, thus the external haze from the table below for examples 1-4 is greater than 60%, and thus the ratios of external to internal haze would be at least 5 for any internal haze less than 12%).
Re Claim 4, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
But Sugiwara in view of Ying does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical stack has an external haze less than or equal to that of the polarizing plate
Optimizing external haze is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sugiwara teaches wherein the polarizing plate (Acrylic particles) [Par 58] comprises the optical stack (anti-glare film 1, which is in turn comprised by ant-glare layer 3), and further teaches the external haze of optical layers (various external haze values of Table 1) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, of glare suppression [Par 008].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting external haze and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the external haze of the acrylic particle layer, in Sugiwara in view of Ying, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 5, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
But Sugiwara in view of Ying does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical stack has an internal haze less than or equal to that of the polarizing plate
Optimizing external haze is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sugiwara teaches wherein the polarizing plate (Acrylic particles) [Par 58] comprises the optical stack (anti-glare film 1, which is in turn comprised by ant-glare layer 3), and further teaches the internal haze of optical layers (various internal haze values of Table 1) as a variable which achieves a recognized result, of glare suppression [Par 008].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting external haze and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the internal haze of the acrylic particle layer in Sugiwara in view of Ying, since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 6, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
But Sugiwara in view of Ying does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical stack has a 60 degree gloss greater than that of the polarizing plate.
Optimizing 60 degree gloss is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Sugiwara teaches wherein the polarizing plate (Acrylic particles) [Par 58] comprises the optical stack (anti-glare film 1, which is in turn comprised by ant-glare layer 3), and further teaches multiple polarizing plates with a variety of 60 degree gloss values (See Table 1 where said gloss values for examples 1-4 are as low as 2 % or GU ), and said gloss value as a variable which achieves a recognized result, of antiglare properties [Par 177 and 190]. Sugiwara thus teaches the general control and optimization of 60 degree gloss in material layers. One of ordinary skill in the art, that is capable of optimization of 60 degree gloss in material layers, would have been capable of optimizing the 60 degree gloss of the entire optical stack (Rather than just the polarizing plate), to be larger than 2 GU.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the 60 degree gloss of the optical stack and identifies said value as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the 60 degree gloss of the optical stack such that is greater than the 60 degree gloss of the polarizing plate, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 7, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1.
But Sugiwara in view of Ying does not explicitly disclose, wherein the optical stack has a 85 degree gloss greater than that of the polarizing plate.
Optimizing 60 degree gloss is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “[a] particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation.” In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Ying teaches on Fig. 2, wherein a polarizer (antiglare coating has Silica particles serve as a polarizer) [Par 007 and 107] has 85 degree gloss between 5.9 and 52.1 % or GU, and further teaches multiple embodiments with a variety of 85 degree gloss values (See Table 2), and said gloss value as a variable which achieves a recognized result, of antiglare properties [Par 107]. Ying thus teaches the general control and optimization of 85 degree gloss in material layers. One of ordinary skill in the art, that is capable of optimization of 85 degree gloss in material layers, would have been capable of optimizing the 85 degree gloss of the entire optical stack (antiglare film), to be larger than 5.9 GU.
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the 85 degree gloss of the optical stack and identifies said value as a result-effective variable. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize the 85 degree gloss of the optical stack such that is greater than the 85 degree gloss of the polarizing plate, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 8, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Sugiwara further discloses, wherein the polarizer (acrylic particles in antiglare layer 3) [Par 58] comprises a polyvinyl alcohol-based film (antiglare layer 3 can include polyvinyl alcohol) [Par 33] containing a hydrophilic functional group ( antiglare layer 3 can include a variety of additives including water soluble polymers) [Par 65] and a hydrophobic functional group (fine particles can have hydrophobic groups) [Par 94].
Re Claim 9, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Sugiwara further discloses, wherein the antiglare layer (antiglare layer 3) has roughness on an outermost surface thereof (antiglare layer has a roughness) [Par 39].
Re Claim 10, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 9, and Sugiwara further discloses on Table 1 (See Translated above) wherein the antiglare layer has a surface roughness of 1,000 nm or less (Examples 1-4 anitglare layer 3 has a roughness RA of less than 900 nm).
Re Claim 11, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 9, and Sugiwara further discloses, wherein, in the antiglare layer (Antiglare layer 3), a content of inorganic particles alone, a content of organic particles alone, or a total content of inorganic particles and organic particles is 0.5 wt % or less (wt% of 0.07-0.2) [Par 17 and 59].
Re Claim 12, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Sugiwara further discloses, wherein the optical stack (antiglare film 1) comprises a base layer (base film 2), the antiglare layer (Antiglare layer 3) stacked in sequence [Par 22-23] and
Ying further teaches wherein an antireflection glare layer has an antireflection layer on it (“forms a low-refractive-index layer on the anti-glare coating of the high-fog anti-glare film to provide anti-reflection”) [Par 15].
Re claim 13, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 12, and Ying further discloses, wherein the antireflection layer has a surface roughness of 200 nm or less (surface of antiglare layer, where antireflective layer is disposed, has a roughness of 150-1500 nm) [Par 9].
Re Claim 14, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Sugiwara further comprises a protective layer (“In addition, the antiglare layer of the antiglare film according to each of the above embodiments may additionally have an upper layer arranged on the surface opposite to the base film (2) side. By providing this upper layer, it is easy to adjust the external haze of the anti-glare layer, and it is easy to protect the anti-glare film from the outside.”) [Par 127].
Re Claim 15, Sugiwara in view of Ying discloses, the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1, and Sugiwara further discloses on Fig. 1 and 3, an optical display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate (antiglare film 1 is on a display 16a of a display device 16) [Par 22].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (US 20220057558 A1) similarily teaches a polarizing plate for antireflection on a display device.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)-272-2713. 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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights