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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/13/2024, and 2/26/2025 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a ratio of internal haze to external haze of greater than 0 to 0.2”, and the claim also recites “a ratio of internal haze to external haze of greater than 0 to 0.2” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
It is not understood if the ration is to be greater than 0 or greater than 0.2. It is further possible that the limitation is being directed such that the ratio of the internal to external haze is between the values of 0 to 0.2. The question being raised is that it is not understood which f the following inequalities is being claimed:
0
<
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
h
a
z
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
h
a
z
e
e
q
u
.
1
0
.
2
<
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
h
a
z
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
h
a
z
e
e
q
u
.
2
0
<
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
h
a
z
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
h
a
z
e
<
0.2
e
q
u
.
3
Examiner is taking the position and examining the claims under the inequality indicated in equation 1 above.
Claims 2-13 are rejected as depending on a rejected bass claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Nimura et. al. (US 2007/01842121 A1)
Regarding claim 1 Nimura teaches polarizing plate comprising: a polarizer; and a protective film stacked on a light exit surface of the polarizer (para. 0305),
where the protective film comprises a polyester based base layer and an antiglare layer stacked on a surface of the polyester based base layer (para. 0012, 0014, and 0350),
and where the protective film has an in-plane retardation of 100 nm to 4,000 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm, a total haze of 40% to 80%, and a ratio of internal haze to external haze of greater than 0 to 0.2 (see table 2; protecting films 1, 4, 5-14, and 15-19).
Regarding claim 2 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the protective film has an external haze of 20% or more to less than 80% (see table 2).
Regarding claim 3 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the protective film has an internal haze of 10% or less (see table 2).
Regarding claim 4 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the protective film has an external haze of 30% to 70% and an internal haze of 1% to 10% (see table 2).
Regarding claim 5 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the polyester based base layer has an internal haze of 1% or less and an external haze of 1% or less (see table 2).
Regarding claim 6 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the protective film is biaxially stretched (para. 0061).
Regarding claim 7 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the antiglare layer has irregularities on an outermost surface thereof without beads (para. 0354-0358).
Regarding claim 8 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the antiglare layer comprises beads therein to have irregularities on an outermost surface thereof (para. 0090).
Regarding claim 9 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the antiglare layer comprises a mixture of first organic particles and second organic particles having a smaller average particle diameter than the first organic particles (para. 0139, 0141, and 0220).
Regarding claim 10 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where an in-plane slow axis of the protective film is tilted at an angle of -40° to +40° with respect to a light absorption axis (0°) of the polarizer (para. 0319).
Regarding claim 11 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, where the protective film further comprises a low refractivity layer stacked on a surface of the antiglare layer (para. 0175).
Regarding claim 12 Nimura teaches polarizing plate, further comprising another protective film stacked on a light incidence surface of the polarizer (para. 0286).
Regarding claim 13 Nimura teaches an optical display apparatus comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1 (para. 0002).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further protective polarization systems include Ninomiya et. al. (US 2007/0268587 A1), Yoshihara et. al. (US 2010/0134879 A1), and Hirakata et. al. (US 2010/0231830 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E TALLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 a.m. -6 p.m..
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/Robert E. Tallman/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872