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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I in the reply filed on 5/26/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-11, 13-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grupp (US Patent No.: US 6,549,254 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Grupp discloses an optical element (Figure 3, optical element 20), comprising at least
A first optically-anisotropic layer that is formed of a liquid crystal composition including a liquid crystal compound (Figure 3, first optically-anisotropic layer 24a-24d; Column 5, l-13-15); and
A second optically-anisotropic layer that is formed of a liquid crystal composition including a liquid crystal compound (Figure 3, second optically-anisotropic layer 24i; Columns 5, l.13-15), wherein
The first optically-anisotropic layer and the second optically-anisotropic layer have a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction (Column 1, l.21-25 disclose liquid crystal having a helical periodic structure having a pitch which can be adjusted resulting in Bragg reflections),
A birefringence Δn1 of the first optically-anisotropic layer and a birefringence Δn2 of the second optically-anisotropic layer satisfy a relationship of Expression (1), and
A thickness T1 of the first optically-anisotropic layer and a thickness of T2 of the second optically-anisotropic layer satisfy a relationship Expression (2), and transmitted light is diffracted (Figure 3; Column 5, l.28-31),
Expression (1) Δn1> Δn2 (Figure 4 discloses a decrease in birefringence as the layers progress from 24a-24j, so each of the first optically-anisotropic layer 24a-24d would have a greater birefringence than the second optically-anisotropic layer 24i), and
Expression (2) 0.002≤T2/T1≤0.3 (Figure 3 discloses uniform thickness of each layer 24a-24d, so the first optically-anisotropic layer consists of 24a-24d, having a four times thickness than that of the second optically-anisotropic layer 24i, so T2/T1=0.25).
Regarding Claim 2, Grupp discloses the optically element according to claim 1, wherein the birefringence Δn1 is 0.21 or more and 0.50 or less, and the birefringence Δn2 is 0.05 or more and 0.20 or less (Figure 4 discloses a 0.24 birefringence of 24a at least for Δn1 and discloses a birefringence of roughly 0.06 for 24i).
Regarding Claim 3, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 1, further comprising: a third optically-anisotropic layer that is formed of a liquid crystal composition including a liquid crystal compound (Figure 3, third optically-anisotropic layer 24j), wherein the third optically-anisotropic layer has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction (Column 1, l.21-25), the second optically-anisotropic layer, the first optically-anisotropic layer, and the third optically-anisotropic layer are laminated in this order (Figure 3), a birefringence Δn3 of the third optically-anisotropic layer and the birefringence Δn1 satisfy a relationship of Expression (3), and a thickness T3 of the third optically-anisotropic layer and the thickness T1 satisfy a relationship of Expression (4), Expression (3) Δn1 > Δn3 (Figure 4 discloses a decrease in birefringence as the layers progress from 24a-24j, so each of the first optically-anisotropic layer 24a-24d would have a greater birefringence than the second optically-anisotropic layer 24j), and Expression (4) 0.002 ≤ T3/T1 ≤ 0.3 (Figure 3 discloses uniform thickness of each layer 24a-24d, so the first optically-anisotropic layer consists of 24a-24d, having a four times thickness than that of the second optically-anisotropic layer 24j, so T2/T1=0.25).
Regarding Claim 4, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 3, wherein the birefringence Δn3 is 0.05 or more and 0.20 or less (Figure 4 discloses a birefringence Δn3 of roughly 0.05).
Regarding Claim 5, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 3, wherein the birefringence Δn1, the birefringence Δn2, and the birefringence Δn3 satisfy relationships of Expressions (5) and (6), Expression (5) 0.1 ≤ Δn1 – Δn2 ≤ 0.25 (Figure 4 discloses Δn1 – Δn2=.18) , and Expression (6) 0.1 ≤ Δn1 – Δn3 ≤ 0.25 (Figure 4 discloses Δn1 – Δn3=.19).
Regarding Claim 10, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 3, wherein in the liquid crystal alignment pattern of the first to third optically-anisotropic layers, the one direction in which the orientation of the optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating is provided in a radial shape from an inner side toward an outer side (Column 1, l.21-25).
Regarding Claim 11, Grupp discloses an image display apparatus (Figures 3-5) comprising: the optical element according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 2, further comprising: a third optically-anisotropic layer that is formed of a liquid crystal composition including a liquid crystal compound (Figure 3, third optically-anisotropic layer 24j), wherein the third optically-anisotropic layer has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating in at least one in-plane direction (Column 1, l.21-25), the second optically-anisotropic layer, the first optically-anisotropic layer, and the third optically-anisotropic layer are laminated in this order (Figure 3), a birefringence Δn3 of the third optically-anisotropic layer and the birefringence Δn1 satisfy a relationship of Expression (3), and a thickness T3 of the third optically-anisotropic layer and the thickness T1 satisfy a relationship of Expression (4), Expression (3) Δn1 > Δn3 (Figure 4 discloses a decrease in birefringence as the layers progress from 24a-24j, so each of the first optically-anisotropic layer 24a-24d would have a greater birefringence than the second optically-anisotropic layer 24j), and Expression (4) 0.002 ≤ T3/T1 ≤ 0.3 (Figure 3 discloses uniform thickness of each layer 24a-24d, so the first optically-anisotropic layer consists of 24a-24d, having a four times thickness than that of the second optically-anisotropic layer 24j, so T2/T1=0.25).
Regarding Claim 14, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 13, wherein the birefringence Δn3 is 0.05 or more and 0.20 or less (Figure 4 discloses a birefringence Δn3 of roughly 0.05).
Regarding Claim 15, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 4, wherein the birefringence Δn1, the birefringence Δn2, and the birefringence Δn3 satisfy relationships of Expressions (5) and (6), Expression (5) 0.1 ≤ Δn1 – Δn2 ≤ 0.25 (Figure 4 discloses Δn1 – Δn2=.18) , and Expression (6) 0.1 ≤ Δn1 – Δn3 ≤ 0.25 (Figure 4 discloses Δn1 – Δn3=.19).
Regarding Claim 20, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 4, wherein in the liquid crystal alignment pattern of the first to third optically-anisotropic layers, the one direction in which the orientation of the optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating is provided in a radial shape from an inner side toward an outer side (Column 1, l.21-25).
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grupp in view of Escuti et al (US Publication No.: US 2016/0033698 A1, “Escuti”).
Regarding Claim 6, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Grupp fails to disclose that the thickness T1 is 1um to 3um.
However, Escuti discloses a similar element where the thickness T1 is 1um to 3um (Escuti, Paragraph 0007, Paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness T1 as disclosed by Grupp to be a particular thickness as disclosed by Escuti. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Escuti, Paragraph 0081).
Regarding Claim 16, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 2.
Grupp fails to disclose that the thickness T1 is 1um to 3um.
However, Escuti discloses a similar element where the thickness T1 is 1um to 3um (Escuti, Paragraph 0007, Paragraph 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness T1 as disclosed by Grupp to be a particular thickness as disclosed by Escuti. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light transmission (Escuti, Paragraph 0081).
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grupp in view of Farrand (US Patent No.: US 6,514,578 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Grupp fails to disclose that the liquid crystal compound is a tolane type liquid crystal compound.
However, Farrand discloses a similar compound where the liquid crystal compound is a tolane type liquid crystal compound (Farrand, (Column 1, l.1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal compound as disclosed by Grupp to be a tolane type as disclosed by Farrand. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the anisotropic mechanical properties (Farrand, Column 1, l.1-5).
Regarding Claim 17, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 2.
Grupp fails to disclose that the liquid crystal compound is a tolane type liquid crystal compound.
However, Farrand discloses a similar compound where the liquid crystal compound is a tolane type liquid crystal compound (Farrand, (Column 1, l.1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal compound as disclosed by Grupp to be a tolane type as disclosed by Farrand. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the anisotropic mechanical properties (Farrand, Column 1, l.1-5).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grupp in view of Kozenkov et al (US Publication No.: US 2002/0172893 A1, “Kozenkov”).
Regarding Claim 8, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Grupp fails to disclose that the liquid crystal compound is a thiotolane type liquid crystal compound.
However, Kozenkov discloses a similar liquid crystal compound which is a thiotolane type liquid crystal compound (Kozenkov, Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal compound as disclosed by Grupp to be a thiotolane type as disclosed by Kozenkov. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the anisotropic mechanical properties (Kozenkov, Paragraph 0036).
Regarding Claim 18, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 2.
Grupp fails to disclose that the liquid crystal compound is a thiotolane type liquid crystal compound.
However, Kozenkov discloses a similar liquid crystal compound which is a thiotolane type liquid crystal compound (Kozenkov, Paragraph 0036).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal compound as disclosed by Grupp to be a thiotolane type as disclosed by Kozenkov. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing the anisotropic mechanical properties (Kozenkov, Paragraph 0036).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grupp in view of Saitoh et al (US Publication No.: US 2020/0271839 A1, “Saitoh”).
Regarding Claim 9, Grupp discloses the optical element according to claim 1.
Grupp fails to disclose that the first optically-anisotropic layer has a region where the optical axis of the liquid crystal compound is twisted along a thickness direction in a plane, and a twisted angle of the region in the thickness direction is 10° to 360°.
However, Saitoh discloses a similar optical element where the first optically-anisotropic layer has a region where the optical axis of the liquid crystal compound is twisted along a thickness direction in a plane, and a twisted angle of the region in the thickness direction is 10° to 360° (Saitoh, Paragraph 0083).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the twist angle as disclosed by Grupp to have a particular value as disclosed by Saitoh. One would have been motivated to do so for the purpose of optimizing light reflection and transmission (Saitoh, Paragraph 0083).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Escuti (US 2013/0027656 A1) discloses a plurality of optically-anisotropic layer with varying birefringence and thicknesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIAM QURESHI whose telephone number is (571)272-4434. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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.
/MARIAM QURESHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights