CTNF 18/740,968 CTNF 82270 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 2 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Matsuno et al. (US 2016/02522660) . Regarding claim 2, Matsuno discloses a dust cover (see figures 1(a) and 1(b), for instance), comprising: a first support plate (10); a polarizing plate (5) including an iodine-based polarizer ([0069]); and a second support plate (20), at least one of the first support plate (10) or the second support plate (20) having a moisture permeability of 37 g/(m 2 · 24 hours) or more ([0083]; “Specifically, the moisture permeability of each of first and second protective films 10 and 20 is preferably not higher than 1000 g/(m 2 · 24 hours), and more preferably not higher than 150 g/(m 2 · 24 hours)”), at least one of the first support plate (10) or the second support plate (20) having a tensile modulus of elasticity of 1,600 MPa or more ([0085]; measured at 80°C, but the modulus increases as the temperature decreases) 1 , which is measured at 23° C ± 2° C, wherein a distance between a center line L P of the iodine-based polarizer (5) in a thickness direction thereof and a center line L D of the dust cover (thicknesses of 10, 15, 5, 25, and 30 combined) in a thickness direction thereof is 20 μm or less (since layers 10 and 20 are identical in thickness and material, and adhesives 15 and 25 differ by a thickness of < 10µm; see [0092] and [0095]). Regarding claim 9, Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 2, wherein the support plates (10, 20) each include a substrate and a surface resin layer ([0080]). Regarding claim 10, Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 9, wherein the substrate contains a polycarbonate resin ([0071]). Regarding claim 11, Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 9, wherein the surface resin layer contains polymethyl methacrylate ([0071]). Regarding claim 12, Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 9, wherein the surface resin layer has a thickness of 30 μm or more ([0081]). Regarding claim 13, Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 2, wherein an iodine content of the polarizer is from 2.2 wt % to 4.0 wt % ([0110]-[0115]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2019/0293931) in view of Matsuno . Regarding claim 1, Yamamoto discloses a dust cover (18, see figures 1-2, for instance), comprising: a first support plate (38); a polarizing plate (34) including an iodine-based polarizer ([0042]); and a second support plate (30), at least one of the first support plate (38) or the second support plate (30) having a thickness of 200 μm or more ([0028], “The thickness of the substrate is not limited to this, but is preferably set at 20 μm or more and 200 μm or less”), wherein a distance between a center line L P of the iodine-based polarizer in a thickness direction thereof and a center line L D of the dust cover in a thickness direction thereof is 20 μm or less (since layers 38 and 30 are identical [0028] and thicknesses of layers 26 and 32 are identical). However, Yamamoto does not expressly disclose wherein at least one of the first support plate or the second support plate having a moisture permeability of 37 g/(m 2 ·24 hours) or more. Matsuno discloses a dust cover (see figures 1(a) and 1(b), for instance), wherein at least one of the first support plate (10) or the second support plate (20) having a moisture permeability of 37 g/(m 2 · 24 hours) or more ([0083]; “Specifically, the moisture permeability of each of first and second protective films 10 and 20 is preferably not higher than 1000 g/(m 2 · 24 hours), and more preferably not higher than 150 g/(m 2 · 24 hours)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the support plates with moisture permeability values as Matsuno in the device of Yamamoto. The motivation for doing so would have been to prevent decoloration of the dichroic colorant in high-temperature and high-humidity environments, as taught by Matsuno ([0083]). Regarding claim 3, Yamamoto in view of Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 1, wherein the support plates (30, 38) each include a substrate and a surface resin layer ([0035]). Regarding claim 4, Yamamoto in view of Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 3, wherein the substrate contains a polycarbonate resin ([0035]). Regarding claim 5, Yamamoto in view of Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 3, wherein the surface resin layer contains polymethyl methacrylate ([0035]). Regarding claim 6, Yamamoto in view of Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 3, wherein the surface resin layer has a thickness of 30 μm or more ([0034]). Regarding claim 7, Yamamoto in view of Matsuno discloses the dust cover according to claim 1, wherein an iodine content of the polarizer is from 2.2 wt % to 4.0 wt % (see Matsuno [0110]-[0115]). Regarding claim 8, Yamamoto in view of Matsuno discloses a head-up display apparatus (see figure 1), comprising: a display unit (12) configured to emit projection light; at least one reflector (16) configured to reflect the projection light; and the dust cover (18) of claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuno in view of Yamamoto . Regarding claim 14, Matsuno discloses the dust cover of claim 2. However, Matsuno does not expressly disclose a head-up display apparatus, comprising: a display unit configured to emit projection light; at least one reflector configured to reflect the projection light; and the dust cover of claim 2. Yamamoto discloses a head-up display apparatus (see figure 1), comprising: a display unit (12) configured to emit projection light; at least one reflector (16) configured to reflect the projection light; and a dust cover (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the head-up display apparatus as Yamamoto using the dust cover of Matsuno. The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a polarizing member that has flame retardance while reducing the deformation of an image in a head-up display apparatus, as taught by Yamamoto ([0008]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANAEL R BRIGGS whose telephone number is (571)272-8992. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. 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. /NATHANAEL R BRIGGS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871 3/26/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/740,968 Page 2 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/740,968 Page 3 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/740,968 Page 4 Art Unit: 2871 Application/Control Number: 18/740,968 Page 5 Art Unit: 2871 1 https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40430-023-04410-8.pdf
Prosecution Insights