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, see pages 2-3, filed 05 November 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, particularly in that elements 210 and 220 of Ryu cannot be construed as the claimed decorative layer and circularly polarized light reflection layer, respectively, as set forth in the previous rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the fact that Examiner made the error in switching the element numbers in Ryu, such that the rejection should have instead set forth elements 210 and 220 as the claimed circularly polarized light reflection layer and decorative layer, respectively (see 35 USC § 103 rejection, below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 10-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (CN-114350271-A; translation submitted previously) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2020/0266845).
Regarding claim 1, Ryu discloses a decorative sheet (see figures 1 and 15, for instance) comprising: a circularly polarized light reflection layer (210, see section of Ryu entitled ‘Stereoscopic colour coating’, and Figure 15, respectively); and a decorative layer (220) that is disposed on the circularly polarized light reflection layer, wherein a visibility-corrected transmittance of the decorative layer (220) in a visible range is 20% to 70% (see page 6 of the attached translation, “the total transmittance of the base material layer can be more than 55 %, specifically 70 %”). However, Ryu does not expressly disclose where an opening portion is provided in the decorative layer.
Kumar discloses a decorative sheet (see figure 1, for instance) comprising: a decorative layer (14) that is disposed on the circularly polarized light reflection layer and where an opening portion is provided (16; [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the opening portions as Kumar in the decorative sheet of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a port to allow handling of audio and optical signals through the decorative layer, as taught by Kumar ([0027]).
Regarding claim 4, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1, wherein a maximum value of an integral reflectivity of the circularly polarized light reflection layer (210) excluding a specular reflection component in a wavelength range of 380 to 780 nm is 7% or more (see page 8, Table 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1, wherein the circularly polarized light reflection layer (210) includes a cholesteric liquid crystal layer having a pitch gradient structure that is a structure in which a helical pitch changes in a thickness direction (see figure 14).
Regarding claim 8, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1, wherein a visibility-corrected transmittance of circularly polarized light in a visible range is 30% or more (see page 8, Table 1).
Regarding claim 10, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses a display device comprising: a display element (20) according to claim 1 that is disposed on the display element.
Regarding claim 11, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the display device according to claim 10, wherein emitted light of the display element is linearly polarized light (20).
Regarding claim 12, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the display device according to claim 11, which is a liquid crystal display device (20) or an organic electroluminescent display device.
Regarding claim 21, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1, wherein a support (201) is provided between the circularly polarized light reflection layer (210) and the decorative layer (220).
Regarding claim 22, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1, wherein a visibility-corrected transmittance of the decorative layer (220) in a visible range is 40 to 70% (see page 6).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 15-19 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Kumar, and in further view of Yonemoto et al. (WO 2018/212070; translation previously submitted).
Regarding claim 2, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1. However, Ryu in view of Kumar does not expressly disclose wherein the circularly polarized light reflection layer exhibits selective reflection in a visible range and has a stripe pattern of bright portions and dark portions observed with a scanning electron microscope in a cross-section, the stripe pattern has a waving structure, and the waving structure refers to a structure in which at least one region M where an absolute value of a tilt angle of a continuous line of the bright portions or the dark portions in the stripe pattern with respect to a plane of the circularly polarized light reflection layer is 5° or more is present, and peaks or valleys having a tilt angle of 0° are specified at two points most adjacent to each other with the region M sandwiched between the two points.
Yonemoto discloses a decorative sheet (see figures 1-4, for instance), including a circularly polarizer light reflection layer (30), wherein the circularly polarized light reflection layer (30) exhibits selective reflection in a visible range and has a stripe pattern of bright portions and dark portions observed with a scanning electron microscope in a cross-section (see figure 6), the stripe pattern has a waving structure (see figure 7), and the waving structure refers to a structure in which at least one region M where an absolute value of a tilt angle of a continuous line of the bright portions or the dark portions in the stripe pattern with respect to a plane of the circularly polarized light reflection layer is 5° or more is present (see page 12, second paragraph, “Here, the cholesteric liquid crystal layer 30 supports a continuous line formed by a bright portion B or a dark portion D having a waved structure sandwiched between adjacent peaks and valleys by SEM observation in that good diffuse reflectance can be obtained. It is preferable to have a plurality of regions where the angle with respect to the surface of the body 28, that is, the formation surface of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer 30 is 5° or more.”), and peaks or valleys having a tilt angle of 0° are specified at two points most adjacent to each other with the region M sandwiched between the two points (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the stripe pattern of bright and dark portions as Yonemoto in the decorative sheet of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a higher luminance uniformity effect in the device output, as taught by Yonemoto (page 5, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 3, Ryu in view of Kumar, in further view of Yonemoto discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 2, and Yonemoto further discloses wherein an average value of peak-to-peak distances of the waving structure is 0.5 to 50 µm (see Yonemoto page 12, third paragraph , “the cholesteric liquid crystal layer 30 preferably has an average peak-to-peak distance (wave period) of 1 to 50 μm in the wavy structure of the bright part B and the dark part D”), the peak-to-peak distance of the waving structure refers to a value obtained by measuring a distance in a plane direction of the circularly polarized light reflection layer between the peaks or the valleys having a tilt angle of 0° at the two points most adjacent to each other with the region M sandwiched between the two points and calculating an arithmetic mean value of distance values at all film thicknesses in a case where a length of the circularly polarized light reflection layer in a major axis direction of the cross-section is 100 µm (this is an experimental limitation based on parameters not necessarily required by the claimed invention; therefore, the limitation cannot be interpreted with any meaningful information for examination).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claims 1 and 2, and Yonemoto further discloses wherein a diameter of the opening portion is 500 µm or less (since the dimensions of the thickness of the support are 10-300 µm, and the thickness of layer 16 is 100 µm or less, the opening 16t would reasonably be interpreted to be less than 500 µm).
Yonemoto discloses a decorative sheet (see figures 1-4, for instance), wherein a diameter of the opening portion is 500 µm or less (since the dimensions of the thickness of the support are 10-300 µm, and the thickness of layer 16 is 100 µm or less, the opening 16t would reasonably be interpreted to be less than 500 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the opening diameter range as Yonemoto in the decorative sheet of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a higher luminance uniformity effect in the device output, as taught by Yonemoto (page 5, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 15, Ryu in view of Kumar and in further view of Yonemoto discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 2, wherein a maximum value of an integral reflectivity of the circularly polarized light reflection layer excluding a specular reflection component in a wavelength range of 380 to 780 nm is 7% or more (see page 8, Table 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ryu in view of Kumar and in further view of Yonemoto discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 2, wherein the circularly polarized light reflection layer (210) includes a cholesteric liquid crystal layer having a pitch gradient structure that is a structure in which a helical pitch changes in a thickness direction (see figure 14).
Regarding claim 18, Ryu in view of Kumar and in further view of Yonemoto discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 2, wherein a visibility-corrected transmittance of the decorative layer (220) in a visible range is 70% or less (page 6).
Regarding claim 19, Ryu in view of Kumar and in further view of Yonemoto discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 2, wherein a visibility-corrected transmittance of circularly polarized light in a visible range is 30% or more (p. 8, Tab 1).
Regarding claim 23, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1. However, Ryu in view of Kumar does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the distance between the circularly polarized light reflection layer and the decorative layer to the diameter of the opening portion is 0.1 to 100.
Yonemoto discloses a decorative sheet (see figures 1-4, for instance), wherein a diameter of the opening portion is 500 µm or less (since the dimensions of the thickness of the support are 10-300 µm, and the thickness of layer 16 is 100 µm or less, the opening 16t would reasonably be interpreted to be less than 500 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the opening diameter range as Yonemoto in the decorative sheet of Ryu, which would result in a ratio of 0.1 to 100 based on the thickness values disclosed on page 9 of the attached translation of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a higher luminance uniformity effect in the device output, as taught by Yonemoto (page 5, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 24, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1. However, Ryu in view of Kumar does not expressly disclose wherein a ratio of the distance between the circularly polarized light reflection layer and the decorative layer to the diameter of the opening portion is 0.3 to 6.
Yonemoto discloses a decorative sheet (see figures 1-4, for instance), wherein a diameter of the opening portion is 500 µm or less (since the dimensions of the thickness of the support are 10-300 µm, and the thickness of layer 16 is 100 µm or less, the opening 16t would reasonably be interpreted to be less than 500 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the opening diameter range as Yonemoto in the decorative sheet of Ryu, which would result in a ratio of 0.3 to 6 based on the thickness values disclosed on page 9 of the attached translation of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a higher luminance uniformity effect in the device output, as taught by Yonemoto (page 5, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Kumar, and in further view of Toy et al. (US 2022/0187521).
Regarding claim 9, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 1. However, Ryu in view of Kumar does not expressly disclose the device further comprising: a l/4 retardation plate or a circularly polarizing plate on a surface side of the circularly polarized light reflection layer opposite to the decorative layer.
Toy discloses a decorative sheet (see figure 1A, for instance), further comprising: a l/4 retardation plate or a circularly polarizing plate on a surface side of the circularly polarized light reflection layer opposite to the decorative layer ([0035], “A linear polarizer can be converted into a circular polarizer, or vice versa, by including a quarter wave retarder. In some embodiments, the optical film includes a liquid crystal-based polarizer. In some embodiments, the optical film includes a cholesteric liquid crystal layer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circular polarizer of Toy in the device of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to exhibit better inhibition of haze after exposure to heat, as taught by Toy ([0038]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Ryu in view of Kumar discloses the decorative sheet according to claims 1 and 10. However, Ryu in view of Kumar does not expressly disclose an automobile interior material comprising: the decorative sheet.
Toy discloses an automobile interior material comprising: the decorative sheet (see figure 1A, for instance; see also [0038]; [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circular polarizer of Toy in the device of Takasago. The motivation for doing so would have been to exhibit better inhibition of haze after exposure to heat, as taught by Toy ([0038]).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Kumar, and in further view of Yonemoto, and in further view of Toy.
Regarding claim 20, Ryu in view of Kumar, and in further view of Yonemoto discloses the decorative sheet according to claim 2. However, Ryu in view of Kumar, and in further view of Yonemoto does not expressly disclose the device further comprising: a l/4 retardation plate or a circularly polarizing plate on a surface side of the circularly polarized light reflection layer opposite to the decorative layer.
Toy discloses a decorative sheet (see figure 1A, for instance), further comprising: a l/4 retardation plate or a circularly polarizing plate on a surface side of the circularly polarized light reflection layer opposite to the decorative layer ([0035], “A linear polarizer can be converted into a circular polarizer, or vice versa, by including a quarter wave retarder. In some embodiments, the optical film includes a liquid crystal-based polarizer. In some embodiments, the optical film includes a cholesteric liquid crystal layer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the circular polarizer of Toy in the device of Ryu. The motivation for doing so would have been to exhibit better inhibition of haze after exposure to heat, as taught by Toy ([0038]).
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 NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571)-272-9791. 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.
/NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 11/11/2025