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
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.
Claim(s) 1,3,4,8-11,14,19,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et., (Chung) US 2022/0137678.
Regarding claim 1, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member comprising: a polarizer (POL)[0093] including an absorption axis [0093] and a transmission axis [0093] which intersect each other; a first retarder (RL1)[0093] disposed under the polarizer (POL); a second retarder (RL2) [0093] disposed under the first retarder (RL1)[0093]; and a third retarder (PL1)[0054,0072] disposed on the polarizer (POL), wherein an in-plane retardation value of the third retarder ranges from approximately 37.5 nanometers to approximately 237.5 nanometers [0073-0076], and wherein an angle between a retardation axis of the third retarder and the transmission axis of the polarizer ranges from approximately 15 degrees to approximately 75 degrees [0075].
As for the retardation value rage and the retardation axis value, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular optimum value and rage of the retardation. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 3, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member, wherein the third retarder (PL1) comprises a λ/4 retarder [0024,0025].
Regarding claim 4, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member, wherein the first retarder comprises a λ/2 retarder [0024], and the second retarder comprises a λ/4 retarder [0024].
Regarding claim 8, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member, further comprising: a protective film (AL2)[0090] disposed on the third retarder (PL1).
Regarding claim 9, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member, further comprising: a hard coating layer (PL2)[0090] disposed on the protective film (AL2), wherein the hard coating layer comprises (meth)acrylate [0084].
Regarding claim 10, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member, further comprising: a first protective film (AL1) disposed between the polarizer (POL) and the third retarder (PL1), wherein the first protective film (AL2)[0090] comprises an acrylic resin film, a polyester resin film, a cellulose resin film, or a polyolefin resin film [0084].
Regarding claim 11, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a polarizing member, further comprising: a hard coating layer (PL3) disposed on the third retarder (PL1), wherein the hard coating layer comprises (meth)acrylate [0084].
Regarding claim 14, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a display device comprising: a display panel [0004]; and a polarizing member (POL)[0093] disposed on the display panel [0004], the polarizing member (POL)[0093] comprising: a polarizer (POL)[0093] having an absorption axis and a transmission axis [0093] which intersect each other; a first retarder (RL1) [0093] disposed under the polarizer (POL); a second retarder (RL2)[0093] disposed under the first retarder (RL1); and a third retarder (PL1)[0054, 0072] disposed on the polarizer (POL), wherein an in-plane retardation value of the third retarder (PL1) ranges from approximately 37.5 nanometers to approximately 237.5 nanometers [0073-0076], and wherein an angle between a retardation axis of the third retarder and the transmission axis of the polarizer ranges from approximately 15 degrees to approximately 75 degrees [0073-0076].
As for the retardation value rage and the retardation axis value, Applicant did not show criticality of the particular optimum value and rage of the retardation. To establish unexpected results over a claimed range or optimum value, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 19, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a display device, wherein the third retarder (PL1) [0054,0072] comprises a λ/4 retarder [0024,0025].
Regarding claim 20, Chung shows in FIG.2-6, a display device, wherein the first retarder comprises a λ/2 retarder [0024,0025], and the second retarder comprises a λ/4 retarder [0024,0025].
Claim(s) 2,5,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung as applied to claims 1,3,4,8-11,14,19,20, and further in view of Ohmuro et al., (Ohmuro) US 2023/0350118.
Regarding claims 2,5,18, Chung discloses a polarizing member wherein the first retarder comprises a λ/2 retarder, and the second retarder [0024,0025].
Chung differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a device polarizing member wherein the second retarder comprises a positive C-plate; wherein the third retarder comprises nematic liquid crystals of a rod shape.
Ohmuro discloses a device polarizing member wherein the second retarder comprises a positive C-plate [0183]; wherein the third retarder comprises nematic liquid crystals of a rod shape [0154,0159].
Ohmuro is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Chung. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; 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 use the teaching of Ohmuro in the device of Chung to adjust the optical characteristics of the liquid crystal layer [0183].
Claim(s) 6,7,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung as applied to claims 1,3,4,8-11,14,19,20, and further in view of IIDA et al., (IIDA) US 2018/0356679.
Regarding claims 6,7,12,13, Chung discloses a first protective film comprises an acrylic resin film, a polyester resin film, a cellulose resin film, or a polyolefin resin film [0084].
Chung differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose a polarizing member, further comprising: a first protective film disposed between the polarizer and the first retarder.
IIDA discloses a polarizing member (515) [0098], further comprising: a first protective film (517) disposed between the polarizer (515)[0098] and the first retarder (518); a second protective film (513) disposed between the polarizer (515) and the third retarder (512).
IIDA is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Chung. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; 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 use the teaching of IIDA in the device of Chung because it will improve deterioration [0014].
Claim(s) 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung as applied to claims 1,3,4,8-11,14,19,20, and further in view of Ko et al., (Ko) US 2022/0059806.
Regarding claims 15-17, Chung discloses a display device wherein the display panel comprises: a pixel electrode (PX)[0066] disposed on a substrate; a light-emitting layer [0066] disposed on the pixel electrode (PX); a cover window [0065] disposed on the polarizing member.
Chung differs from the claimed invention because he does not explicitly disclose
a common electrode disposed on the light-emitting layer; an encapsulation layer disposed on the common electrode; and a touch sensor disposed on the encapsulation layer.
Ko discloses a common electrode [0215] disposed on the light-emitting layer [0216]; an encapsulation layer disposed on the common electrode [0215]; and a touch sensor disposed on the encapsulation layer [0215].
Ko is evidence that ordinary workers skilled in the art would find reasons, suggestions or motivations to modify the device of Chung. Therefore, at the time the invention was made; 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 use the teaching of Ko in the device of Chung because it will provide a device with reduced distortion of an optical signal that is incident onto an electronic module [0006].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND whose telephone number is (571)272-5178. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at 571-270-0373. 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.
MARC - ANTHONY ARMAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2813
/MARC-ANTHONY ARMAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights