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
Claims 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/14/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I drawn to claims 1-8 and 13 in the reply filed on 5/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 7-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190204490 A1 to Takeda.
Regarding Claim 1. Takeda discloses a wire grid polarizing element comprising: a transparent substrate; and latticed projections arranged at a pitch shorter than a wavelength of light of a usage band on one surface of the transparent substrate, and extending in a predetermined direction (See Fig. 1, para 42 “a pitch shorter than a wavelength of light of a use band and extending in a predetermined direction”), wherein the latticed projection includes, in order from a side of the transparent substrate, a reflection layer (Fig. 1 reflection layer 2), a dielectric layer (Fig. 1 dielectric layer 3) and an absorption layer (Fig. 1 absorption layer 4), and wherein a region dividing the latticed projection is disposed in a predetermined region of the transparent substrate (as shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 2. Takeda further discloses the transparent substrate is transparent to light of the usage band, and includes glass, crystal, quartz or sapphire (para 53).
Regarding Claim 3. Takeda further discloses reflection layer contains at least one metal selected from the group consisting of Al, Ag, Cu, Mo, Cr, Ti, Ni, W, Fe, Si, Ge, Te and Nd (para 58).
Regarding Claim 4. Takeda further discloses the dielectric layer includes a Si oxide, a Ti oxide, a Zr oxide, an Al oxide, a Nb oxide or a Ta oxide (para 65).
Regarding Claim 5. Takeda further discloses the absorption layer absorbs light of the usage band, and contains a metal, alloy or semiconductor (para 73).
Regarding Claim 7. Takeda further discloses at least part of a surface is covered by a protective film, and wherein the protective film includes a material which is the same as the material included in the dielectric layer (para 80).
Regarding Claim 8. Takeda further discloses at least part of a surface is covered by an organic water-repellent film (para 81).
Regarding Claim 13. Takeda further discloses an optical device comprising the wire grid polarizing element according to claim 1 (as shown in at least Fig. 1).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takeda as applied to claim 1 in view of US 20180267357 A1 to Ohori et al.
Regarding Claim 6. As stated above Takeda disclose all the limitations of base claim 1.
Takeda does not specifically disclose an antireflection layer on another surface of the transparent substrate.
However, Ohori discloses that an antireflection layer may be formed on any surface of a transparent substrate of a wire grid polarizer (para 42) with the motivation of preventing unwanted reflection on the substrate (See para 42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include an antireflection layer on another surface of the transparent substrate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights