CTFR 18/462,136 CTFR 79272 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 13 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Okusa et al. (WO 2021/0023333 A1) . Re claims 1 and 2, Okusa et al. discloses a light absorption anisotropic film comprising a dichroic substance (paragraphs 0009, 0095). As to the claim limitation “wherein a polarization degree A measured by allowing polarized light to be incident from one surface of the light absorption anisotropic film is different from a polarization degree B measured by allowing polarized light to be incident from the other surface of the light absorption anisotropic film, wherein an absolute value difference between the polarization degree A and the polarization degree B is 0.10% greater”, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ” (MPEP 2114). Okusa et al. is capable of performing all the functions recited in the claim. For instance, a polarized light of the corresponding polarization of the absorption anisotropic film incident on the absorption anisotropic film on one surface may be transmitted, whereas a polarized light of the opposite polarization incident on the other surface of the absorption anisotropic film may be blocked. This would result in a polarization degree A being different from a polarization degree B of 0.10% greater. Re claims 3 and 18, Okusa et al. discloses a device wherein in a surface of the light absorption anisotropic film on a side where the measured polarization degree is smaller between the polarization degree A and the polarization degree B, the dichroic substance has an out-of-plane alignment degree of f zx of -0.2 or greater (paragraph 0206). Re claims 4 and 19, Okusa et al. discloses the device wherein the light absorption anisotropic film has an in-plane absorption axis (paragraph 0099). Re claims 6, Okusa et al. discloses the device wherein a content of the dichroic substance is 40% by mass or less with respect to a total mass of the light absorption anisotropic film (paragraph 0100). Re claim 7, Okusa et al. discloses the device further comprising: a polymer liquid crystal compound (paragraph 0172-0177). Re claim 13, Okusa et al. disclose a device comprising a protective layer (B1); paragraph 0440), the light absorption film (P1); and an alignment film (PA1) in this order in a thickness direction, wherein the alignment film is disposed on a surface side of the light absorption anisotropic film (paragraph 0402-0404), where a measured polarization degree is greater between a polarization degree A and a polarization degree B measured using the light absorption anisotropic film. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does ” (MPEP 2114). Okusa et al. is capable of performing all the functions recited in the claim. A polarized light that may be transmitted may be incident on the alignment film side, and an opposite polarized that may be blocked may be blocked on the opposite side. Re claim 16, Okusa et al. discloses an image display device comprising the light absorption anisotropic film according to claim 1 (abstract). Re claim 17, Okusa et al. discloses an image display device comprising the laminate according to claim 13 (abstract) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 14, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okusa et al. (WO 2021/0023333 A1) . Re claims 5 and 20, Okusa et al. does not disclose the device wherein the light absorption anisotropic film has a visible light transmittance of 35% to 70%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the light absorption anisotropic film has a visible light transmittance of 35% to 70% since doing so is well known in the art to improve brightness. Re claim 14, Okusa et al. does not disclose the device wherein a refractive index of the light absorption anisotropic film at a wavelength of 550 nm is greater than a refractive index of the protective layer at a wavelength of 550 nm. Okusa et al. discloses the device wherein a refractive index of liquid crystal layer is high (paragraph 0132) and an adjacent refractive index matching layer having a refractive index of 1.60-1.70 at 550 nm (paragraph 0132). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective layer to employ the device wherein a refractive index of the light absorption anisotropic film at a wavelength of 550 nm is greater than a refractive index of the protective layer at a wavelength of 550 nm since it is well known and conventional in the art for the refractive index of a protective layer to be approximately 1.40, which is lower than the relatively high refractive index of the liquid crystal composition of approximately 1.60 to 1.70 at 550 nm. Once can assume that the refractive index of the liquid crystal composition to be approximately 1.60-170 at 550 nm since the function of the refractive index matching layer is to match the refractive index of an adjacent layer. Re claim 15, Okusa et al. discloses a device comprising a λ/4 plate (paragraph 0130), but does not explicitly disclose that the λ/4 plate is disposed on a surface side of the alignment film opposite to the light absorption anisotropic film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein λ/4 plate is disposed on a surface side of the alignment film opposite to the light absorption anisotropic film. Okusa et al. discloses that the λ/4 plate maybe provided in close contact with each other (paragraph 0130). Therefore, one such configuration would be having the alignment film on the opposite side of the light absorption anisotropic film than the λ/4 plate . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okusa et al. (WO 2021/0023333 A1) in view of Au et al. (US 2021/0380564 A1) and Yu et al. (US 2018/0313989 A1) . Re claim 8, Okusa et al. discloses the device further comprising a surfactant having a fluorine atom (paragraph 00048), but does not disclose the device comprising a log P value of 5.2 or less. Au et al. discloses that a lower log P equates achieves a hydrophilic property (paragraph 0042). Yu et al. discloses that a hydrophilic property of an optical layer assists in good adhesion to an adhesive layer (paragraph 0023). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ device comprising a lop P value of 5.2 or less since one would be motivated to obtain a hydrophilic property of the light absorption anisotropic film to aid in good adhesive to adjacent layers. Re claim 9, Okusa et al. discloses the device wherein a content of the of the fluorine atom in the surfactant is 10% by mass or greater (abstract). Re claim 10, Okusa et al. discloses the device wherein the surfactant does not contain a hydrogen bonding group (paragraphs 0145-0150). Re claim 11, Okusa et al. discloses the device wherein the content of the surfactant is in a range of 0.05% to 5% by mass with respect to a total mass of the light absorption anisotropic film (paragraph 0193) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okusa et al. (WO 2021/0023333 A1), Au et al. and Yu et al., in view of Mielewski et al. (US 8,197,924 B2) . Okusa et al. does not disclose the device wherein in a case where the light absorption anisotropic film contains a polymer liquid crystal compound, a distance between a Hansen solubility parameter of the surfactant and a Hansen solubility parameter of the liquid crystal compound is 3.5 MPa 1/2 or greater. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein in a case where the light absorption anisotropic film contains a polymer liquid crystal compound, a distance between a Hansen solubility parameter of the surfactant and a Hansen solubility parameter of the liquid crystal compound is 3.5 MPa 1/2 or greater. Mielewski et al. discloses a device wherein a difference of Hansen solubility parameters between materials contributes to relative insolubility (col. 4, lines 24-39). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein in a case where the light absorption anisotropic film contains a polymer liquid crystal compound, a distance between a Hansen solubility parameter of the surfactant and a Hansen solubility parameter of the liquid crystal compound is 3.5 MPa 1/2 or greater to achieve relative insolubility between two materials is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art . Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument that “polarization degree” is a parameter calculated from the transmittance of predetermined polarized light when it is incident and the transmittance of polarized light orthogonal to the predetermined polarized light when it is incident, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s), Examiner submits that polarized light that is transmitted would have a higher polarization degree than polarized light orthogonal to the predetermined light that is not transmitted on the other surface. Polarization degree may be interpreted as the extent of the polarized light that is transmitted. The polarization degree A of a polarized light that is transmitted would be different from a polarization degree B of a polarized light that is not transmitted. “Degree” is defined as “the, extent, measure, or scope of an action, condition or relation”, by merriam-webster.com. Therefore, the extent of polarized light that is transmitted, would be different from the extent of polarized light that is not transmitted. The term “polarization degree” does not structurally limit the claim limitations. In response to Applicant’s argument describing the structurally similarity of the surfactant F-1 of Okusa ‘333 and Comparative Example 1, the claim language does not claim any structurally limiting claim language that would result in the claimed function. Therefore, the claim language may be broadly interpreted as described above. In response to Applicant’s argument that the difference in polarization degree of the liquid crystal layer P1 as obtained using the laminate of Comparative Example XI is 0.00%, Examiner submits that any structural difference that would result in the claimed function is not claimed. Accordingly, the claim limitation may be broadly interpreted as described above. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns , 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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. /RICHARD H KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 2 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 3 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 4 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 5 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 6 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 7 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 8 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 9 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/462,136 Page 10 Art Unit: 2871
Prosecution Insights