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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 06/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claim has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2010/0227269, of record) in view of Ishida et al. (2008/0125524, of record) in view of Kazamaier et al. (US 4,751,327, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson disclose a light absorption filter ([0024] disclose: radiation absorbing compound) comprising:
a wavelength selective absorption layer ([0141] discloses: inner layer; [0145] discloses: absorbs radiation from about 600 nm-1500 nm; therefore considered a wavelength selective absorption layer) containing a resin ([0141] discloses: inner layer, may include acrylic resin) and a squarine-based coloring agent ([0145] discloses: inner layer, further comprises an infrared radiation absorbing compound; [0147] discloses: squarilium dye and squarine dyes); and
an adjacent layer ([0140] discloses: outer layer) arranged on at least one surface of the wavelength selective absorption layer ([0140] discloses: inner layer disposed between outer layer and substrate).
Simpson fails to disclose a filter with a squarine-based coloring agent represented by General Formula (1), and
wherein the adjacent layer contains a basic compound,
PNG
media_image1.png
155
383
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the formula, A and B each independently represent an aryl group which may have a substituent, a heterocyclic group which may have a substituent, or -CH=G, where G represents a heterocyclic group which may have a substituent. Simpson and Ishida are related because both disclose optical filters.
Ishida teaches an optical filter wherein the adjacent layer contains a basic compound ([0047] teaches: acrylic adhesives including monomers having a reactive functional group such as amino group and amine-type crosslinkers; [0049] teaches: incorporating components into an adhesive layer provided between any two adjacent layers selected from the transparent support and optional layers; Examiner notes that amino/amine-containing compounds are well known basic compounds; therefore, Ishida teaches an adjacent layer containing a basic compound). Simpson and Kazmaier are related because both disclose squarine based coloring agents.
Kazmaier teaches a filter with a squarine-based coloring agent represented by General Formula (1) (Col. 5 line 52- Col 7 line 20 teaches: examples of squarine-based compounds);
in the formula, A and B each independently represent an aryl group which may have a substituent, a heterocyclic group which may have a substituent, or -CH=G, where G represents a heterocyclic group which may have a substituent (Col. 5 line 52- Col 7 line 20 teaches: examples of squarine-based compounds with aryl groups on both sides with substituents).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention Simpson to incorporate the teachings of Ishida and Kazmaier and provide a filter with a squarine-based coloring agent represented by General Formula (1), and wherein the adjacent layer contains a basic compound; in the formula, A and B each independently represent an aryl group which may have a substituent, a heterocyclic group which may have a substituent, or -CH=G, where G represents a heterocyclic group which may have a substituent. Doing so would allow for bonding adjacent optical filter layers using know adhesives/adjacent layers while improving cohesion, durability, and stability of the optical filter, and further allow for selection of a known class of squarine-based dyes having strong absorption in desired wavelength regions, thereby improving control over the spectral characteristics of the optical filter.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Simpson disclose the light absorption filter according to claim 1,
wherein the wavelength selective absorption layer contains a compound A ([0140] discloses: inner layer contains polymeric binders) that has an acid group ([0099] discloses: polymeric binder can be phenolic resin; Examiner notes that phenolic resin contains phenolic hydroxyl groups, which are well known weak acidic functional groups capable of proton donation; therefore the material constitutes an acidic compound) and a compound B that forms a hydrogen bond with the acid group contained in the compound A and generates a radical upon ultraviolet irradiation ([0081] discloses: free radical generation, by photo initiator; [0052] discloses: radiation including UV for layers; [0054] discloses: compounds that generate free radicals sensitive to radiation; Examiner notes that the radical generating compound include heterocyclic and functionalized species capable of forming hydrogen bonds with phenolic hydroxyl groups of the polymeric binder, while independently generating radicals upon ultraviolet radiation).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2010/0227269, of record) in view of Ishida et al. (2008/0125524, of record) in view of Kazamaier et al. (US 4,751,327, of record), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Lai et al. (US 5,321,159, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Simpson disclose the light absorption filter according to claim 2,
wherein in the light absorption filter, the coloring agent is chemically changed upon ultraviolet irradiation ([0081] discloses: free radical generation, by photo initiator; [0052] discloses: radiation including UV for layers; [0054] discloses: compounds that generate free radicals sensitive to radiation).
Simpson fails to disclose a filter wherein the coloring agent is chemically changed to be decolorized. Simpson and Lai are related because both disclose optical filter coloring agents.
Lai teaches a filter wherein the coloring agent is chemically changed to be decolorized (Col. 2, lines 11-55 teach: decolorized agent of filter layer using alkyl radicals and benzyl group).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Simpson to incorporate the teachings of Lai and provide disclose a filter wherein the coloring agent is chemically changed to be decolorized. Doing so would allow for improves spectral characteristic control, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the optical filter.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2010/0227269, of record) in view of Ishida et al. (2008/0125524, of record) in view of Kazamaier et al. (US 4,751,327, of record), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Nakamura (US 6,632,585, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Simpson disclose the optical filter according to claim 2,
Simpson fails to disclose a filter that is obtained by subjecting the light absorption filter to mask exposure by ultraviolet irradiation. Simpson and Nakamura are related because both disclose optical filters.
Nakamura teaches a filter that is obtained by subjecting the light absorption filter to mask exposure by ultraviolet irradiation (Claim 19 teaches: waveguide element made by exposing to ultraviolet radiation with phase mask exposure; Col. 14, lines 10-20 teach: by forming a grating cyclic structure in the core portion of an optical waveguide, a reflective optical filter which selectively reflects light having a specific wavelength can be formed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Simpson to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura and provide a filter that is obtained by subjecting the light absorption filter to mask exposure by ultraviolet irradiation. Doing so would allow for better spectral characteristic control, thereby improving overall performance and functionality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Simpson discloses the optical filter according to claim 4.
Simpson fails to disclose an organic electroluminescent display device, an inorganic electroluminescent display device, or a liquid crystal display device, comprising: an optical filter. Simpson and Ishida are related because both disclose optical filters.
Ishida teaches an organic electroluminescent display device, an inorganic electroluminescent display device, or a liquid crystal display device, comprising: an optical filter ([0002] teaches: light absorbing layers in optical filter used in liquid crystal displays).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Simpson to incorporate the teachings of Ishida and provide an organic electroluminescent display device, an inorganic electroluminescent display device, or a liquid crystal display device, comprising: an optical filter. Doing so would allow for improved image quality and contrast, thereby improving the overall performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 7, Simpson discloses the filter according to claim 2.
Simpson fails to disclose a manufacturing method for an optical filter, comprising:
irradiating the light absorption filter with an ultraviolet ray to carry out mask exposure. Simpson and Nakamura are related because both disclose optical filters.
Nakamura teaches a manufacturing method for an optical filter, comprising:
irradiating the light absorption filter with an ultraviolet ray to carry out mask exposure (Claim 19 teaches: waveguide element made by exposing to ultraviolet radiation with phase mask exposure; Col. 14, lines 10-20 teach: by forming a grating cyclic structure in the core portion of an optical waveguide, a reflective optical filter which selectively reflects light having a specific wavelength can be formed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Simpson to incorporate the teachings of Nakamura and a manufacturing method for an optical filter, comprising: irradiating the light absorption filter with an ultraviolet ray to carry out mask exposure. Doing so would allow for better spectral characteristic control, thereby improving overall performance and functionality of the optical system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson et al. (US 2010/0227269, of record) in view of Ishida et al. (2008/0125524) in view of Kazamaier et al. (US 4,751,327, of record), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Nakamura (US 6,632,585, of record), as applied to claim 5 above, in view of Zehner et al. (US 2003/0011868, of record).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Simpson discloses the organic electroluminescent display device, the inorganic electroluminescent display device, or the liquid crystal display device according to claim 5.
Simpson fails to disclose a device wherein a layer that inhibits light absorption of the compound B is provided on a viewer side with respect to the optical filter. Simpson and Zehner are related because both disclose photoconductive devices.
Zehner teaches a device wherein a layer that inhibits light absorption of the compound B is provided on a viewer side with respect to the optical filter (Figure 1 depicts: 12, photoconductive layer, provided on a viewer side with respect to the optical filter; Examiner notes that the layer is on the viewer side of the light emitting layer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Simpson to incorporate the teachings of Zehner and provide disclose a device wherein a layer that inhibits light absorption of the compound B is provided on a viewer side with respect to the optical filter. Doing so would allow for selective attenuation of incident light reducing undesired absorption thereby improving overall display brightness and optical performance.
Compact Prosecution
To advance prosecution, Applicant may wish to further define the optical filter as including a layer that inhibits light absorption of compound B and is provided on a viewer side with respect to the optical filter, if supported by the specification. Such limitations would more directly distinguish the claimed light absorption filter from the cited combination, which is relied upon for a general optical filter structure, and squarine-based coloring agent, and a basic compound in and adjacent/adhesive layer, but does not appear to specifically address the above relationship for suppressing ultraviolet-irradiation decomposition/secondary absorption in the claimed filter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights