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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonaga et al. (US Pub. 20090002606, Tomonaga) in view of OTA et al. (US Pub. 20210294013, Ota).
As per claim 1, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) an optical display apparatus comprising: a liquid crystal panel (10); and a viewer-side polarizing plate (20, 30, and 40) stacked on a surface of the liquid crystal panel, wherein the liquid crystal panel comprises a liquid crystal layer (12) having a pre-tilt angle of less than 20° (paragraph 103), and the viewer-side polarizing plate comprises a first retardation layer (40) comprising a positive A layer (paragraph 94) ; a second retardation layer (30) comprising a positive C layer (paragraph 94); and a polarizer (20) stacked sequentially from the liquid crystal panel, and satisfies the following Relation 1: 10 nm ≤ Re1 + Rth2 ≤ 90 nm, where Re1 is an in-plane retardation of the first retardation layer at a wavelength of 590 nm, and Rth2 is an out-of-plane retardation of the second retardation layer at a wavelength of 590 nm (paragraph 176) wherein the positive A player has an in-plane retardation of 100 nm to 160 nm at a wavelength of 590 nm (130-150 nm see paragraph 175), and an out of plane retardation of 50 nm to 80 nm at a wavelength of 590 nm (applicant has defined out of plane retardation is defined ((nx + ny)/2 - nz)*d in paragraph 21 of the originally filed specification which in the case of an A plate having a refractive ellipsoid that satisfies nx>ny=nz simplifies to ((nx-ny)/2)*d or in other words Re/2, therefore as the given range for Re in Tomonaga is 130-150nm the range for Rth is 65-75 nm when using applicants definition).
Tomonaga does not specifically teach that the pre-tilt angle is 2° to 5°, that the relation 1 is Re1 - 205 nm ≥ Rth2, and that the retardations are measured at a wavelength of 550 nm, or that the positive C layer comprises at least one compound selected from among a cellulose ester based compound or a polymer thereof and an aromatic based compound or a polymer thereof, the aromatic based compound comprising a polystyrene based compound, a fluorobenzene structure, or a difluorobenzene structure and the positive C layer does not contain a liquid crystalline polymer or a monomer for forming the liquid crystalline polymer.
However, Tomonaga teaches that the liquid crystal layer is an IPS liquid crystal layer (paragraph 100) and that the pre tilt angle is a result effective variable in that if the pretilt is too large contrast ratio will be reduced, that Re1 and Rth2 are in the ranges of 130 nm to 150 nm (paragraph 175) and -130 nm to -70 nm (paragraph 126) respectively and that the relationship of Re1 to Rth2 is a result effective variable in that if the values are too similar or too different contrast ratio in an oblique direction will deteriorate (paragraph 176).
Ota teaches forming a positive C plate out of stretched polyester resin (see paragraphs 133 and 155) comprising an aromatic based compound or a polymer thereof (Chem. 4), the aromatic based compound comprising a fluorobenzene structure or a difluorobenzene structure (see paragraphs 52, 59, and 61 which disclose fluorine atoms bonded to the benzine rings at the 2 and 7 positions), in order to provide a film which has excellent toughness and easily expresses a retardation such that sufficient retardation can be achieved even in a thin film (paragraph 158).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the pre-tilt angle to be 2° to 5° and form the retardation layers such that Re1 and Rth2 satisfy the relation Re1 - 205 nm ≥ Rth2, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B)) and to form the positive C plate out of stretched polyester resin as suggested by Ota in order to provide a film which has excellent toughness and easily expresses a retardation such that sufficient retardation can be achieved even in a thin film.
Additionally, While Tomonaga does not specifically teach that the retardations are measured at 550 nm Tomonaga does teach that they are measured at 590 nm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in the instant case, as light at 550 nm and 590 nm are close in value and in the middle of the visible spectrum one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the retardations measured at these values to be nearly identical.
As per claim 2, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that Re1 - 205 nm is in a range from -100 nm to -60 nm (-75 nm to -55 nm see paragraph 175).
As per claim 4, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the liquid crystal layer is a liquid crystal layer in a horizontal alignment mode (paragraph 100).
As per claim 5, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the liquid crystal layer is formed by physical alignment (paragraph 98).
As per claim 7, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the liquid crystal layer has positive birefringence (paragraph 99).
As per claim 8, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the positive A layer has an in-plane retardation of 110 nm to 160 nm (130 nm to 150 nm, paragraph 175) at a wavelength of 590 nm.
Tomonaga does not specifically teach that the retardation is measured at 550 nm.
However, Tomonaga teaches that the retardation is measured at 590 nm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in the instant case, as light at 550 nm and 590 nm are close in value and in the middle of the visible spectrum one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the retardations measured at these values to be nearly identical.
As per claim 9, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that a slow axis of the positive A layer is tilted at an angle of -1° to 1° with respect to a light absorption axis (0°) of the polarizer (paragraph 94).
As per claim 10, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the positive A layer has negative wavelength dispersion (paragraph 179).
As per claim 11, Tomonaga in view of Ota teaches that the positive C layer has an out-of-plane retardation of -140 nm to -10 nm (-130 nm to -70 nm, paragraph 126 in Tomonaga) at a wavelength of 590 nm.
Tomonaga in view of Ota does not specifically teach that the retardation is measured at 550 nm.
However, Tomonaga teaches that the retardation is measured at 590 nm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in the instant case, as light at 550 nm and 590 nm are close in value and in the middle of the visible spectrum one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the retardations measured at these values to be nearly identical.
As per claim 12, Tomonaga in view of Ota that the second retardation layer comprises the positive C layer alone (shown in figure 1 of Tomonaga and as modified by Ota) or comprises the positive C layer and a second protective layer (“isotropic optical element” in Tomonaga) stacked on at least one surface of the positive C layer (paragraph 94 lines 26-28 in Tomonaga).
As per claim 14, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the first retardation layer comprises the positive A layer alone (shown in figure 1), or comprises the positive A layer and a first protective layer (“isotropic optical element”) stacked on at least one surface of the positive A layer (paragraph 94 lines 26-28).
As per claim 15, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the first retardation layer comprises the positive A layer (40) and a first protective layer (“isotropic optical element”) stacked on at least one surface of the positive A layer (paragraph 94 lines 26-28) wherein the first protective layer has an in-plane retardation of 10 nm or less (paragraph 236) at a wavelength of 590 nm
Tomonaga does not specifically teach that the retardation is measured at 550 nm.
However, Tomonaga teaches that the retardation is measured at 590 nm and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) in the instant case, as light at 550 nm and 590 nm are close in value and in the middle of the visible spectrum one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the retardations measured at these values to be nearly identical.
As per claim 16, Tomonaga in view of Ota only the first retardation layer (40 in Tomonaga) and the second retardation layer (30 in Tomonaga as modified by Ota) are present as retardation layers between the polarizer (20 in Tomonaga) and the liquid crystal panel (10 in Tomonaga).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonaga et al. (US Pub. 20090002606, Tomonaga) and OTA et al. (US Pub. 20210294013, Ota) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Jeon et al. (US Pub. 20050200792, Jeon).
As per claim 3, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the liquid crystal layer of the liquid crystal panel is an IPS liquid crystal layer (paragraph 100).
Tomonaga does not teach that the liquid crystal layer has an in-plane retardation of 330 nm to 380 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm.
However, Jeon teaches that for an IPS panel the in-plane retardation value should be between 200 nm and 350 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm and that the in plane retardation is a result effective variable in that if the retardation is too large or too small the device will not be switchable between a black state and a white state (paragraphs 21-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to set the in-plane retardation of the liquid crystal layer to be 330 nm to 380 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (A) and (B))
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomonaga et al. (US Pub. 20090002606, Tomonaga) and OTA et al. (US Pub. 20210294013, Ota) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Fujita (US Pub. 20080239223).
As per claim 6, Tomonaga teaches (in figures 1-2) that the liquid crystal panel comprises the liquid crystal layer (12) and an alignment layer (“alignment film” paragraph 98) formed on a surface of the liquid crystal layer formed of polyimide.
Tomonaga does not specifically teach that the alignment layer is subjected to rubbing treatment.
However, Fujita teaches (in figure 4) preforming a rubbing process on a layer of polyimide in order to set the alignment direction of the liquid crystal layer (paragraph 50).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a rubbing process as suggested by Fujita in forming the device of Tomonaga in order to ensure proper alignment of the liquid crystal layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the cited references fail to teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Specifically applicant argues that Tomonaga in view of Ota fails to teach a positive C layer comprising at least one compound selected from among a cellulose ester based compound or a polymer thereof and an aromatic based compound or a polymer thereof, the aromatic based compound comprising a polystyrene based compound, a fluorobenzene structure, or a difluorobenzene structure and the positive C layer does not contain a liquid crystalline polymer or a monomer for forming the liquid crystalline polymer. This argument is unpersuasive. As shown in the rejection above Ota teaches forming a positive C plate out of stretched polyester resin (see paragraphs 133 and 155) comprising an aromatic based compound or a polymer thereof (Chem. 4), the aromatic based compound comprising a fluorobenzene structure or a difluorobenzene structure (see paragraphs 52, 59, and 61 which disclose fluorine atoms bonded to the benzine rings at the 2 and 7 positions), in order to provide a film which has excellent toughness and easily expresses a retardation such that sufficient retardation can be achieved even in a thin film (paragraph 158). As such when taken together the cited references teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 ALEXANDER P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-5660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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.
/ALEXANDER P GROSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights