DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 11-17 in the reply filed on 5/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 and 18-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/19/26.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (US 2019/0271801, “Mochizuki”) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2012/0314179, “Matsuda”).
Regarding claim 1, Mochizuki teaches a light absorption anisotropic film (e.g., [0028] – [0031]) comprising a dichroic dye that may be modified so as to include a hydrophilic group ([0026], [0040] – [0044], [0045] – [0050]),and wherein the film may have a maximal absorption wavelength in the range of from 700 to 1500 nm (e.g., [0029]). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Please see MPEP 2144.05. Mochizuki fails to specifically teach the thickness of the film is less than 10 micrometers, however in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films ([0002] – [0007]), Matsuda teaches a useful thickness for such a film is on the range of from 0.05 to 10 micrometers ([0109]). Therefore it would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have adopted a thickness of less than 10 micrometers in order to provide a film having sufficient thinness and because it is conventional in the art to do so (Matsuda, e.g., [0109]).
Regarding claim 5, Mochizuki fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a non-colorable lyotropic liquid crystal compound in the anisotropic film of its invention. The present application defines “non-colorable” as having little or no absorption in the wavelength band of from 400 to 700 nm (i.e., visible light, see PG Pub 2024/0053511, [0192]). However, in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films (e.g., [0002], [0003]), Matsuda teaches that including a lyotropic liquid crystal compound having low or no absorption in the visible wavelengths of light permits an anisotropic film to be used as a retardation or compensation film in a display device (e.g., [0109] – [0110]) and thus the inclusion of such a compound either as an addition or in substitution for components in Mochizuki would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding claim 11-13, Mochizuki additionally teaches that the film may be used in a display device, a sensor, or a camera ([0004], [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Mochizuki additionally teaches that the polarizing plate may be used in a device that may include an infrared light source (e.g., a switching element, [0063] or various types of display devices that would emit at least some light in the infrared region, [0060] – [0063]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Matsuda as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Ichihashi (JP 2009-244493, a machine copy of which is provided as the citation copy, hereafter “Ichihashi”).
Regarding claim 2, Mochizuki fails to specifically teach that the dichroic dyes are formed into a J-aggregate. However, in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films (p. 1, birefringent films), Ichihashi teaches that aggregating dichroic dyes molecules in a known manner permits the artisan to increase the absorption wavelength of the dye, including to within 700 to 1300 nm (see pp. 4-5). It therefore would have been obvious to the ordinarily to have adopted such J-aggregates of the dyes of Mochizuki in order to increase absorption wavelengths toward the range of from 700 to 1300 nm (Ichihashi, pp. 1, 4-5).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Matsuda as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Takada et al. (US 2019/0071571, “Takada”).
Regarding claim 3, Mochizuki fails to specifically teaches the alignment degree of the dichroic substance. However, in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films ([0003] – [0006]), Takada teaches that for a polarizer, a preferred alignment degree is 0.85 or greater (see [0305] – [0315]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adopted an alignment degree for the dichroic dye of Mochizuki of as high as 0.85 or greater as such an alignment degree is considered excellent in the art for the use of such a substance in anisotropic films ([0305] – [0315], [0324] – [0327]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Matsuda as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Fang et al. (US 2017/0219751, “Fang”).
Regarding claim 4, Mochizuki teaches to include dyes having a maximum absorption of from 700 to 1500 nm ([0024], and a film having maximum absorptions within these ranges, [0029]) but fails to specifically teach the inclusion of two or more dichroic substances or dyes. However, Fang teaches that it is known to include multiple dichroic dyes in a dye composition in order to modify the absorption wavelength for the dyes ([0048]) and thus the inclusion of multiple dyes having wavelengths within the ranges described by Mochizuki (i.e., from 700 to 1500 nm, [0024]) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill at the time of filing in order to adjust the absorption wavelength for a given application (see Fang, [0048]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Matsuda in view of Ichihashi as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Takada.
Regarding claim 15, the combination remains as applied to claim 2, above, however Mochizuki fails to specifically teaches the alignment degree of the dichroic substance. In the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films ([0003] – [0006]), Takada teaches that for a polarizer, a preferred alignment degree is 0.85 or greater (see [0305] – [0315]). It therefore would have been obvious to have adopted an alignment degree for the dichroic dye of Mochizuki of as high as 0.85 or greater as such an alignment degree is considered excellent in the art for the use of such a substance in anisotropic films ([0305] – [0315], [0324] – [0327]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Matsuda in view of Ichihashi as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Fang.
Regarding claim 16, the combination remains as applied to claim 2, above. Mochizuki teaches to include dyes having a maximum absorption of from 700 to 1500 nm ([0024], and a film having maximum absorptions within these ranges, [0029]) but fails to specifically teach the inclusion of two or more dichroic substances or dyes. However, Fang teaches that it is known to include multiple dichroic dyes in a dye composition in order to modify the absorption wavelength for the dyes ([0048]) and thus the inclusion of multiple dyes having wavelengths within the ranges described by Mochizuki (i.e., from 700 to 1500 nm, [0024]) would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill at the time of filing in order to adjust the absorption wavelength for a given application (see Fang, [0048]).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki in view of Matsuda in view of Ichihashi as applied to claim 2, above, and further in view of Matsuda.
Regarding claim 17, the combination remains as applied to claim 2, above, however Mochizuki fails to specifically teach the inclusion of a non-colorable lyotropic liquid crystal compound in the anisotropic film of its invention. The present application defines “non-colorable” as having little or no absorption in the wavelength band of from 400 to 700 nm (i.e., visible light, see PG Pub 2024/0053511, [0192]). However, in the same field of endeavor of anisotropic films (e.g., [0002], [0003]), Matsuda teaches that including a lyotropic liquid crystal compound having low or no absorption in the visible wavelengths of light permits an anisotropic film to be used as a retardation or compensation film in a display device (e.g., [0109] – [0110]) and thus the inclusion of such a compound either as an addition or in substitution for components in Mochizuki would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
Goto et al. (US 2022/0113461) discloses similar J-aggregate materials to those claimed. It is noted that both Goto and the present invention are believed to be owned by the same entity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J FROST whose telephone number is (571)270-5618. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 8:00am to 4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANTHONY J FROST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights