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.
Claims 1-4, 10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200355964 A1 (Yonezawa et al.) in view of US 20070184212 A1 (Nimura et al.).
Regarding claim 1:
Yonezawa discloses a polarizing plate comprising:
a polarizer; (Fig. 4, polarizer [21])
a protective film stacked on an upper surface of the polarizer (Para. [0075] the polarizer includes a protective film on one side not shown in the fig. 4.); and
a retardation film stacked on a lower surface of the polarizer (Fig. 4, retardation layers [23] and [24]),
wherein the retardation film includes a first retardation layer [23] and a second retardation layer [24] that is a coating layer disposed on one surface of the first retardation layer, (Para. [0092], the retardation layers [23] and [24] are laminated together to form the retardation film.)
the polarizer has a polarization degree of 99.5% or more. (Para. [0057], the polarization degree is 99.9% or more.)
Yonezawa fails to teach
the protective film has a total haze of 19% or more and an internal haze of 7% or more, at a wavelength of 550 nm to 555 nm.
Nimura teaches a protective film for a polarizer wherein
the protective film has a total haze of 19% or more and an internal haze of 7% or more, at a wavelength of 550 nm to 555 nm. (Table 2 lists the internal and total haze of several embodiments, for example protective film 13 has a total haze of 70% and an internal haze of 38%. Nimura does not explicitly teach the wavelength for the haze, see Para. [0328] discussing how haze is measured. However Nimura teaches the protective film for a polarizer is meant to operate in the visible spectrum in the 550nm wavelength, see Para. [0200] teaching that the light transmittance of the antistatic layer at 550 nm is preferably at least 70%. Given the larger values of total haze and internal haze in Nimura one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the protective film of Nimura to have a total haze of more than 19% and an internal haze of more than 7% at the wavelength of 550 nm.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective film has a total haze of 19% or more and an internal haze of 7% or more, at a wavelength of 550 nm to 555 nm as taught by Nimura in the polarizing plate of Yonezawa for the purpose of diffusing visible changes in the retardation.
Regarding claim 2:
Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1, wherein
the polarizer has a single transmittance of 44% or more. (Yonezawa teaches that the single transmittance of the polarizer may be 45% in para. [0056])
Regarding claim 3:
Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1, wherein
Nimura futher discloses
the protective film (Para. [0011]) includes a protective film substrate (Para. [0014] the polyester resin of item (1)) and an anti-glare layer (Para. [0087] teaches that the light-scattering layer is an antiglare hard-coat layer.) stacked on an upper surface of the protective film substrate. (Nimura see abstract, the anti-glare layer (light-scattering layer) is provided on one surface of the protective film.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the protective film include a protective film substrate and an anti-glare layer stacked on an upper surface of the protective film substrate as taught by Nimura in the polarizing plate of Yonezawa for the purpose of providing a protective layer with anti-glare properties.
Regarding claim 4:
Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 3, wherein
the anti-glare layer includes a matrix and particles impregnated in the matrix. (Nimura para. [0090] teaches that the light scattering layer comprises a binder with particles dispersed in the binder. Para. [0356] the light scattering layer is an antiglare hard coat layer.)
Regarding claim 10:
Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1, wherein
the protective film has a higher internal haze than the retardation film at a wavelength of 550 nm. (Nimura teaches in Table 2 protective film 13 having a total haze of 70% and an internal haze of 38% and teaches. Nimura does not explicitly teach the wavelength for the haze, see Para. [0328] discussing how haze is measured. However Nimura teaches the protective film for a polarizer meant to operate in the visible spectrum in the 550nm wavelength, see Para. [0200] teaching that the light transmittance of the antistatic layer at 550 nm is preferably at least 70%. Given the large values of total haze and internal haze in Nimura one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the protective film of Nimura to have a total haze of more than 19% and an internal haze of more than 7% at the operating wavelength of 550 nm.)
Regarding claim 13:
Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1, wherein the first retardation layer and the second retardation layer are sequentially stacked from the polarizer. (Yonezawa Fig. 4 shows retardation layers [23] and [24] are sequentially stacked from polarizer [21])
Regarding claim 14:
Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches an optical display device comprising the polarizer of claim 1. (Yonezawa teaches that the polarizing plate is used in an image display device in the abstract.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa in combination with Nimura as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20070206282 A1 (Miyatake et al.).
Regarding claim 5:
While Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 4,
Neither Yonezawa nor Nimura teaches or suggests
wherein the particles include silica and the particles are included in a range of 10 wt% to 50 wt% in the anti-glare layer. (They are silent on the use of silica as particles in the anti-glare layer.)
Miyatake teaches a polarizing plate (See abstract) with an anti-glare layer wherein
the particles include silica and the particles are included in a range of 10 wt% to 50 wt% in the anti-glare layer. (See Para. [0098], the anti-glare layer may include silica and may have a weight ratio of 2:100 50:100 for the weight of the particles to the resin resulting in a wt% of approximately 2% to 33%.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the particles include silica and the particles are included in a range of 10 wt% to 33 wt% in the anti-glare layer as taught by Miyatake in the polarizing plate of Yonezawa in combination with Nimura for the purpose of reducing reduction of visibility of the light transmitted through the polarizing plate caused by ambient light.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa in combination with Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160115333 A1 (Ito et al.).
Regarding claim 6:
While Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1,
they fail to teach or suggest
wherein the retardation film has a total haze of 0.1% to 1%. (They are silent on the total haze of the retardation film.)
Ito teaches a retardation film (See Para. [0001], the optical compensation film is an optical compensation film for use as a retardation film in a display) wherein
the retardation film has a total haze of 0.1% to 1%. (Para. [0066], Ito teaches that the optical compensation film has a haze total haze 1% or less for the purpose of enhancing the contrast.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the retardation film have a total haze of 0.1% to 1% as taught by Ito in the polarizing plate of Yonezawa in combination with Nimura for the purpose of enhancing the contrast.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa in combination with Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20090290100 A1 (Haruta et al.).
Regarding claim 7:
While Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1,
they fail to teach or suggest
wherein the second retardation layer has at least a retardation change area in which a difference of an in-plane retardation is 10 nm or less at a wavelength of 550 nm as compared with a surrounding area in an in- plane direction.
Haruta teaches a polarizing plate wherein
wherein the second retardation layer has at least a retardation change area in which a difference of an in-plane retardation is 10 nm or less at a wavelength of 550 nm as compared with a surrounding area in an in- plane direction. (Para. [0801], the second in-plane retardation of the second phase difference area is most preferably 0 to 10 nm)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second retardation layer has at least a retardation change area in which a difference of an in-plane retardation is 10 nm or less at a wavelength of 550 nm as compared with a surrounding area in an in- plane direction as taught by Haruta in the polarizing plate of Yonezawa in combination with Nimura for the purpose of preventing abrupt change in the retardation.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yonezawa in combination with Nimura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160154159 A1 (Kim et al.).
Regarding claim 8:
While Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1,
neither teaches or suggests
wherein the second retardation layer includes at least one of a cellulose ester-based polymer and a polystyrene-based polymer.
Kim teaches a polarizing plate wherein
the second retardation layer includes at least one of a cellulose ester-based polymer and a polystyrene-based polymer. (Para. [0021], the polymer of the second retardation layer may include cellulose ester and/or a polystyrene-based polymer.)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second retardation layer includes at least one of a cellulose ester-based polymer and a polystyrene-based polymer as taught by Kim in the polarizing plate of Yonezawa in combination with Nimura for the purpose of forming the second retardation layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 11-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9:
While Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1, wherein the second retardation layer has a slow axis of +79° to +89° or -89° to -79° with respect to a MD of the first retardation layer. (Yonezawa teaches that relationship between the slow axis of the second layer and the MD of the first layer is 45°. See Paras. [0095] and [0148], the MD of the first layer corresponding to the absorption axis of the polarizer. Nimura does not teach a second retardation layer.)
Claim 11 allowable subject matter due to its dependance on claim 9.
Regarding claim 12:
While Yonezawa in combination with Nimura teaches the polarizing plate of claim 1,
they fail to teach or suggest
wherein the first retardation layer has an in-plane retardation of 200 nm to 270 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm, and the second retardation layer has an in-plane retardation of 80 nm to 140 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm. (Nimura is silent on the in-plane retardation of its retardation layer. Yonezawa teaches that the first retardation layer has an in-plane retardation of 120 nm to 160 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm (See abstract).)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH D MOSER whose telephone number is (703)756-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10am-6pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)270-1782. 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.
/SETH D MOSER/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872