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 1-11 and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the remarks, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Sakai et al. (US 2019/0278010) and Koo et al. (WO 2020/204411), of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the examiner suggests that “as claimed in any one of claims 1” should be changed to “as claimed in claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 2019/0278010) (hereafter Sakai), in view of Koo et al. (WO 2020/204411, all citations are to the English translation) of record (hereafter Koo).
Regarding claim 1, Sakai discloses a polarizing plate (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0013]) comprising: a polarizer and a laminate of a first retardation layer and a second retardation layer stacked on a lower surface of the polarizer (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0045], where 10 is a linear polarizer, and 12 and 14 are first and second retardation layers), wherein short wavelength dispersion of the first retardation layer is less than short wavelength dispersion of the second retardation layer (see at least paragraphs [0053]-[0054], where the first retardation layer is second retardation layer 14, which has a short wavelength dispersion, R2(450)/R2(550) closer to 1 than retardation layer 12, and the second retardation layer is first retardation layer 12, which has a short wavelength dispersion of 1.10 to 1.20), the first retardation layer has an in-plane retardation of 280 nm to 400 nm (see at least paragraph [0049], where the retardation layer 14 has an in-plane retardation of 255 to 355 nm) and a positive refractive index anisotropy (see at least paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and [0049], where the refractive index anisotropy is a difference of the in-plane refractive indices), the second retardation layer has an in-plane retardation of 140 nm to 260 nm (see at least paragraph [0048], where retardation layer 12 has an in-plane retardation of 115 to 220 nm) and a negative refractive index anisotropy (see at least paragraphs [0041]-[0043] and [0048], where the refractive index anisotropy is a difference of the in-plane refractive indices), and a difference between in-plane retardation of the first retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm and in-plane retardation of the second retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm is in the range of 130 nm to 150 nm (see at least paragraphs [0050], [0057], and [0091], where the difference at 550 nm in in-plane retardation is 115 nm to 160 nm and the difference in in-plane retardation is the retardation of the stack, which is a quarter of the desired wavelength), wherein the first retardation layer exhibits positive wavelength dispersion; the second retardation layer exhibits positive wavelength dispersion; and the laminate of the first retardation layer and the second retardation layer exhibits negative wavelength dispersion (see at least paragraphs [0009], [0058], and [0091], where the first and second retardation layers show normal (i.e. positive) wavelength dispersion and the combination of the two shows reverse (i.e. negative) wavelength dispersion).
Sakai does not specifically disclose that the first retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of greater than 1 to less than 1.6 at a wavelength of 550 nm and that the second retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of less than 0 at a wavelength of 550 nm.
The degree of biaxiality and the refractive index anisotropy appear to be related in that the degree of biaxiality is defined in the present specification as NZ = (nx – nz)/ (nx-ny), where nx, ny, and nz are refractive indices of the layer and the refractive index anisotropy is defined by Sakai to be Δn = ne – no, where ne and no are the extraordinary light refractive index and the ordinary light refractive index of the layer. When the refractive index anisotropy is negative, as it is for the retardation layer 12 in Sakai (see paragraph [0048]), then one of ordinary skill would expect the degree of biaxiality to also be negative.
Additionally, Koo teaches a polarizing plate comprising a polarizer and a laminate of a first retardation layer and a second retardation layer (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [12], claim 1), wherein the first retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of greater than 1 to less than 1.6 at a wavelength of 550 nm (see at least paragraph [21], claim 10) and the second retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of less than 0 at a wavelength of 550 nm (see at least paragraph [21], claim 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai to include the teachings of Koo so that the first retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of greater than 1 to less than 1.6 at a wavelength of 550 nm and that the second retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of less than 0 at a wavelength of 550 nm for the purpose of improving circular polarization and side reflectance (see at least paragraphs [64] and [83] of Koo).
Regarding claim 2, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the first retardation layer comprises a compound having positive birefringence and the second retardation layer comprises a compound having negative birefringence (see at least paragraphs [0048] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 3, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Koo also teaches that the first retardation layer is a non-liquid crystal layer (see at least paragraph [65]) and that the second retardation layer is a non-liquid crystal layer (see at least paragraph [87]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo to include the further teachings of Koo so that the first and second retardation layers are each a non-liquid crystal layer for the purpose of being obvious to use another known birefringent material in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired refractive indices.
Regarding claim 4, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Koo also teaches that the first retardation layer comprises at least one resin of cellulose based, polyester based, cyclic polyolefin based, cyclic olefin copolymer based, polycarbonate based, polyethersulfone based, polysulfone based, polyamide based, polyimide based, polyolefin based, polyarylate based, polyvinylalcohol based, polyvinylchloride based, polyvinylidenechloride based, and acrylic based resins (see at least paragraph [65]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo to include the further teachings of Koo so that the first retardation layer comprises at least one resin of cellulose based, polyester based, cyclic polyolefin based, cyclic olefin copolymer based, polycarbonate based, polyethersulfone based, polysulfone based, polyamide based, polyimide based, polyolefin based, polyarylate based, polyvinylalcohol based, polyvinylchloride based, polyvinylidenechloride based, and acrylic based resins for the purpose of being obvious to use another known birefringent material in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired refractive indices.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Koo also teaches that the second retardation layer comprises at least one of a cellulose based compound and an aromatic based compound (see at least paragraph [88], cellulose ester) and that the cellulose based compound comprises at least one of a cellulose ester based compound and a cellulose ether based compound (see at least paragraph [88], cellulose ester).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo to include the further teachings of Koo so that the second retardation layer comprises at least one of a cellulose based compound and an aromatic based compound and that the cellulose based compound comprises at least one of a cellulose ester based compound and a cellulose ether based compound for the purpose of being obvious to use another known birefringent material in order to obtain predictable results such as the desired refractive indices.
Regarding claim 7, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Koo also teaches that the second retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of about -1.0 to about -0.1 at a wavelength of 550 nm (see at least paragraph [21], claim 10, biaxial degree is from -2 to 0).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai to include the teachings of Koo so that the second retardation layer has a degree of biaxiality of about -1.0 to about -0.1 at a wavelength of 550 nm for the purpose of improving circular polarization and side reflectance (see at least paragraphs [64] and [83] of Koo).
Regarding claim 8, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the first retardation layer has its slow axis as its optical axis and the second retardation layer has its fast axis as its optical axis (see at least paragraph [0047]), that the optical axes of each retardation layer are parallel to each other and are at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the polarization axis of the polarizer (see at least paragraph [0091]).
Koo also teaches that the first retardation layer has a slow axis placed in an oblique direction with respect to a MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm (see at least paragraph [68], obliquely stretched in a direction inclined at a predetermined angle with respect to a machine direction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo to include the further teachings of Koo so that the first retardation layer has a slow axis placed in an oblique direction with respect to a MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm for the purpose of manufacturing and establishing a desired angle for the slow axis in order to achieve the desired retardation effects in the polarizing plate.
Regarding claim 9, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 8.
Sakai also discloses that the slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 45° with respect to the transmission axis of the polarizer (see at least paragraph [0091]).
Sakai as modified by Koo does not specifically disclose that the slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 43° to about 47° with respect to the MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the slow axis of the first retardation layer being tilted at an angle of about 43° to about 47° with respect to the MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer include adjusting the ellipticity of light passing through the first retardation layer since it is known that the angle of the slow axis relative to an axis of a polarizer modifies how circular/elliptical the transmitted light is.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo so that the slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 43° to about 47° with respect to the MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer for the purpose of adjusting the ellipticity of light passing through the first retardation layer since it is known that the angle of the slow axis relative to an axis of a polarizer modifies how circular/elliptical the transmitted light is.
Regarding claim 10, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the first retardation layer has its slow axis as its optical axis and the second retardation layer has its fast axis as its optical axis (see at least paragraph [0047]), that the optical axes of each retardation layer are parallel to each other and are at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the polarization axis of the polarizer (see at least paragraph [0091]).
Koo also teaches that the second retardation layer has a slow axis placed in an oblique direction with respect to a MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer or the second retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm (see at least paragraph [74]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo to include the further teachings of Koo so that the second retardation layer has a slow axis placed in an oblique direction with respect to a MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer or the second retardation layer at a wavelength of 550 nm for the purpose of manufacturing and establishing a desired angle for the slow axis in order to achieve the desired retardation effects in the polarizing plate.
Regarding claim 11, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 10.
Sakai also discloses that the slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 135° with respect to the transmission axis of the polarizer (see at least paragraph [0091], where the fast axis of the second retardation layer is the optical axis and is at an angle of 45° to the transmission axis of the polarizer and thus the slow axis is at an angle of 135°).
Koo as modified by Lee does not specifically disclose that the slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 133° to about 137° with respect to the MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer or the second retardation layer.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of the slow axis of the second retardation layer being tilted at an angle of about 133° to about 137° with respect to the MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer or the second retardation layer include adjusting the ellipticity of light passing through the first retardation layer since it is known that the angle of the slow axis relative to an axis of a polarizer modifies how circular/elliptical the transmitted light is.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo so that the slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 133° to about 137° with respect to the MD (machine direction) of the first retardation layer or the second retardation layer for the purpose of adjusting the ellipticity of light passing through the first retardation layer since it is known that the angle of the slow axis relative to an axis of a polarizer modifies how circular/elliptical the transmitted light is.
Regarding claim 14, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that long wavelength dispersion of the first retardation layer is greater than long wavelength dispersion of the second retardation layer (see at least paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Regarding claim 15, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the first retardation layer has a short wavelength dispersion of about 0.95 to about 1.06 and a long wavelength dispersion of about 0.96 to about 1.03, and the second retardation layer has a short wavelength dispersion of about 1 to about 1.2 and a long wavelength dispersion of about 0.90 to about 1 (see at least paragraphs [0053]-[0054], where retardation layer 14 has short dispersion of 1.00 to 1.10 and long dispersion of 0.90 to 1.00 and retardation layer 12 has short dispersion of 1.10 to 1.20 and long dispersion of .90 to .95).
Regarding claim 16, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that a slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of about 44° to 46° and a slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 134° to 136°, with reference to a transmission axis of the polarizer (see at least paragraphs [0047] and [0091]).
Regarding claim 17, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai as modified by Koo does not specifically disclose that a slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 134° to 136° and a slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 44° to 46°, with reference to a transmission axis of the polarizer.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of a slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 134° to 136° and a slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 44° to 46°, with reference to a transmission axis of the polarizer include adjusting the ellipticity of light passing through the first retardation layer since it is known that the angle of the slow axis relative to an axis of a polarizer modifies how circular/elliptical the transmitted light is and rotating the retardation layers by 90° maintains the general configuration of the polarizing plate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo so that a slow axis of the first retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 134° to 136° and a slow axis of the second retardation layer is tilted at an angle of 44° to 46°, with reference to a transmission axis of the polarizer for the purpose of adjusting the ellipticity of light passing through the first retardation layer since it is known that the angle of the slow axis relative to an axis of a polarizer modifies how circular/elliptical the transmitted light is and rotating the retardation layers by 90° maintains the general configuration of the polarizing plate.
Regarding claim 18, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses that the first retardation layer and the second retardation layer are sequentially stacked in the stated order on the lower surface of the polarizer, or the second retardation layer and the first retardation layer are sequentially stacked in the stated order on the lower surface of the polarizer (see at least Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 19¸ Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses a protective layer on an upper surface of the polarizer (see at least Fig. 2B and paragraph [0090], where the polarizer includes a protective film 101 on an upper surface).
Regarding claim 20, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai also discloses an optical display device comprising the polarizing plate of claim 1 (see at least Fig. 1 and paragraph [0045], where 21 is a display panel).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (US 2019/0278010) (hereafter Sakai), in view of Koo et al. (WO 2020/204411, all citations are to the English translation) of record (hereafter Koo) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koo et al. (WO 2021/029626, all citations are to the English translation) of record (hereafter Koo’21).
Regarding claim 13, Sakai as modified by Koo discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Sakai as modified by Koo does not specifically disclose that the first retardation layer is a positive A or negative B plate and the second retardation layer is a negative A or positive B plate.
However, Koo’21 teaches a polarizing plate comprising a polarizer, a first retardation layer, and a second retardation layer (see at least paragraph [12], claim 1), wherein the first retardation layer is a negative B plate (see at least paragraph [98]) and the second retardation layer is a positive B plate (see at least paragraph [116]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polarizing plate of Sakai as modified by Koo to include the teachings of Koo’21 so that the first retardation layer is a positive A or negative B plate and the second retardation layer is a negative A or positive B plate for the purpose of substituting known retardation layers for other known retardation layers in order to obtain predictable results such as preventing loss of luminance (see at least paragraph [98] of Koo’21).
Conclusion
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights