DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, lines 8-9 recite “the machine direction or cross-machine direction”, which should be “a machine direction or a cross-machine direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 7 recites “the machine direction or cross-machine direction”, which should be “a machine direction or a cross-machine direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “the polarization rotary optical film …..has a Tg….and a dimension change”. While there is support for the “polymer” in the polarization rotary optical film having a Tg and a dimension change as presently claimed in the specification (see paragraph [0062] of the present specification), there is no support for the entire polarization rotary optical film having a Tg and a dimension change as presently claimed. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
Claim 9 recites “the polarization rotary optical film …..has a Tg….and a dimension change”. While there is support for the “polymer” in the polarization rotary optical film having a Tg and a dimension change as presently claimed in the specification (see paragraph [0062] of the present specification), there is no support for the entire polarization rotary optical film having a Tg and a dimension change as presently claimed. This rejection affects all the dependent claims.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garajedagui et al. (EP 0421886 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2003/0067574 A1 cited in IDS), Takagi (US 2014/0103551 A1 cited in IDS) and D’Errico (US 2006/0094803 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Garajedagui et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1-5, 8-11 and 14, Garajedagui et al. disclose a head-up display system (HUD) comprising a half-wave plate associated with a windscreen, i.e. windshield (see Abstract). A specific example includes the half-wave plate 8 integrated into the windscreen 5 (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0007 and 0011). The half-wave plate 8 (polarization rotary optical film) is sandwiched between two polyvinyl butyral films 11 (first polymer layer and second polymer layer) which are themselves sandwiched between sheets 51 and 52 of the windscreen (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 0015, 0016). Based on Figure 3, the half-wave plate is a single wave plate. The polyvinyl butyral films 11 on each side of the half-wave plate 8 read on an interlayer. Given that the sheets 51 and 52 are part (integrated) of the windscreen, the sheets 51 and 52 read on a pair of rigid substrates. Accordingly, Garajedagui et al. disclose an interlayer and a windshield as presently claimed.
Garajedagui et al. do not disclose the half-wave plate (polarization rotary optical film) as presently claimed. Garajedagui et al. do not disclose the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer films) comprising a plasticizer as presently claimed.
Sasaki et al. disclose a half wave plate made of cellulose ester that provides birefringence controllability, birefringence uniformity, transparency and heat resistance (see paragraph 0019).
In light of motivation for using a half wave plate made of cellulose ester disclosed by Sasaki et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the half-wave plate made of cellulose ester in Garajedagui et al. in order to provide birefringence controllability, birefringence uniformity, transparency and heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
While Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. disclose the half wave plate (polarization rotary optical film) made of cellulose ester, Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. do not disclose the half-wave plate (polarization rotary optical film) having a Tg and a dimension change as presently claimed. Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. do not disclose the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer films) comprising a plasticizer as presently claimed.
Takagi discloses an optical compensating resin film produced by casting a resin exhibiting a glass transition temperature of 150 to 200 °C (see Abstract). The optical compensating film minimizes light leakage due to light scattering to improve image contrast (see paragraph 0002). The aforementioned glass transition temperatures improve optical and mechanical characteristics (see paragraph 0043). The optical compensating film has excellent dimensional stability (see paragraph 0170). The resin can be cellulose ester (see paragraph 0048).
In light of motivation for using optical compensating film comprising cellulose ester resin disclosed by Takagi as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use optical compensating film comprising cellulose ester of Takagi as the half-wave plate in Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. in order to minimize light leakage due to light scattering to improve image contrast, to improve optical and mechanical characteristics as well as to improve dimensional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Takagi disclose half-wave plate comprising a cellulose ester having a glass transition temperature of 150 to 200 °C. Therefore, the half-wave plate of Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Takagi necessarily has a Tg as presently claimed.
Further, given that Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Takagi disclose half-wave plate identical to that presently claimed that has excellent dimensional stability, the half-wave plate of Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Takagi would necessarily inherently have a dimension change in either a machine direction or a cross-machine direction as presently claimed.
Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Takagi do not disclose the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer films) comprising a plasticizer as presently claimed.
D’Errico disclose a multiple layer glass panel comprising an interlayer, wherein the interlayer comprises a polymer sheet comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a polyphosphate ester plasticizer (see paragraph 0009). The thermoplastic polymer can be polyvinyl butyral and the polyphosphate ester plasticizer can be resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) (see paragraphs 0011 and 0020). The phosphate esters improve fire resistant character of polymer sheets (see paragraph 0007). The multiple layer glass panel can be windshields, windows, and other finished glazing products (see paragraph 0071).
In light of motivation for using polyphosphate ester plasticizer such as resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) disclosed by D’Errico as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polyphosphate ester plasticizer such as resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) of D’Errico in any or both of the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer layers) of Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and Takagi in order to improve fire resistance of the polyvinyl butyral films, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 12 and 13, Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al., Takagi and D’Errico disclose the interlayer as set forth above. Further, D’Errico discloses acid scavenger agents including epoxide acid scavenger agents can be added to the polymer sheet to impart additional stability (see paragraphs 0012, 0048, and 0051). As evidenced by the present specification, acid scavengers agents are adhesion promoters (see paragraph 0068 of the specification as originally filed).
In light of motivation for using acid scavengers disclosed by D’Errico as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use acid scavengers in any or both of polyvinyl butyral films of Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al., Takagi and D’Errico in order to impart additional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al., Takagi and D’Errico disclose the first polymer layer, the polarization rotatory optical film and the second polymer layer identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that the interfacial between at least one of the first polymer layer and film interface and the second polymer layer and film interface is at least 6 MPa as measured by the compressive shear adhesion test.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garajedagui et al. (EP 0421886 A1) in view of Sasaki et al. (US 2003/0067574 A1 cited in IDS) and D’Errico (US 2006/0094803 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that the disclosures of Garajedagui et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 15-17 and 20, Garajedagui et al. disclose a head-up display system (HUD) comprising a half-wave plate associated with a windscreen, i.e. windshield (see Abstract). A specific example includes the half-wave plate 8 integrated into the windscreen 5 (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0007 and 0011). The half-wave plate 8 (polarization rotary optical film) is sandwiched between two polyvinyl butyral films 11 (first polymer layer and second polymer layer) which are themselves sandwiched between sheets 51 and 52 of the windscreen (see Figure 3 and paragraphs 0015, 0016). Based on Figure 3, the half-wave plate is a single wave plate (i.e. one wave plate). The polyvinyl butyral films 11 on each side of the half-wave plate 8 read on an interlayer. Given that the sheets 51 and 52 are part (integrated) of the windscreen, the sheets 51 and 52 read on a pair of rigid substrates. Accordingly, Garajedagui et al. disclose an interlayer and a windshield as presently claimed.
Garajedagui et al. do not disclose the half-wave plate (polarization rotary optical film) as presently claimed. Garajedagui et al. do not disclose the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer films) comprising a plasticizer as presently claimed.
Sasaki et al. disclose a half wave plate made of cellulose ester that provides birefringence controllability, birefringence uniformity, transparency and heat resistance (see paragraph 0019).
In light of motivation for using a half wave plate made of cellulose ester disclosed by Sasaki et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use the half-wave plate made of cellulose ester in Garajedagui et al. in order to provide birefringence controllability, birefringence uniformity, transparency and heat resistance, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. do not disclose the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer films) comprising a plasticizer as presently claimed.
D’Errico disclose a multiple layer glass panel comprising an interlayer, wherein the interlayer comprises a polymer sheet comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a polyphosphate ester plasticizer (see paragraph 0009). The thermoplastic polymer can be polyvinyl butyral and the polyphosphate ester plasticizer can be resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) (see paragraphs 0011 and 0020). The phosphate esters improve fire resistant character of polymer sheets (see paragraph 0007). The multiple layer glass panel can be windshields, windows, and other finished glazing products (see paragraph 0071).
In light of motivation for using polyphosphate ester plasticizer such as resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) disclosed by D’Errico as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polyphosphate ester plasticizer such as resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) of D’Errico in any or both of the polyvinyl butyral films (polymer layers) of Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. in order to improve fire resistance of the polyvinyl butyral films, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and D’Errico disclose the interlayer as set forth above. Further, D’Errico discloses acid scavenger agents including epoxide acid scavenger agents can be added to the polymer sheet to impart additional stability (see paragraphs 0012, 0048, and 0051). As evidenced by the present specification, acid scavengers agents are adhesion promoters (see paragraph 0068 of the specification as originally filed).
In light of motivation for using acid scavengers disclosed by D’Errico as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use acid scavengers in any or both of polyvinyl butyral films of Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and D’Errico in order to impart additional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Garajedagui et al. in view of Sasaki et al. and D’Errico disclose the first polymer layer, the polarization rotatory optical film and the second polymer layer identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that the interfacial between at least one of the first polymer layer and film interface and the second polymer layer and film interface is at least 6 MPa as measured by the compressive shear adhesion test.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao et al. (WO 2017/094581 A1) in view of Takagi (US 2014/0103551 A1 cited in IDS) and D’Errico (US 2006/0094803 A1 cited in IDS). It is noted that when utilizing Tao et al., the disclosures of the reference are based on US 2018/0275505 A1 (cited in IDS) which is an English language equivalent of the reference. Therefore, the paragraph numbers cited with respect to Tao et al. are found in US ‘505.
Regarding claims 9-11 and 14, Tao et al. disclose a transparent screen sheet comprising a glass plate 30 (rigid substrate), a bonding layer 31 comprising polyvinyl butyral (first polymer layer), a first resin film 70 comprising triacetyl cellulose (i.e. cellulose ester), a second resin film 70 comprising triacetyl cellulose (i.e. cellulose ester), a bonding layer 41 comprising polyvinyl butyral (second polymer layer) and a glass plate 40 (rigid substrate) (see Abstract and paragraphs 0026, 0028, 0033, 0035, 0039, 0040, 0077). The bonding layer 31 and the bonding layer 41 can comprise plasticized polyvinyl acetal (see paragraph 0035). The first resin film 70 and the second resin film 70 can each have retardation of one-fourth of the wavelength of the light or less (see paragraph 0075). Given that the first resin film 70 can have retardation of one-fourth of the wavelength and the second resin film 70 can have retardation of one-fourth of the wavelength, the first resin film 70 and the second resin film 70 together have retardation of half wave plate. Accordingly, first resin film 70 and second resin film 70 together read on polarization rotary optical film, wherein the polarization rotary film is a half wave plate and wherein the halfwave plate is formed from one or more wave plates. The bonding layer 31 (first polymer layer), a first resin film 70, a second resin film 70 and bonding layer 41 (second polymer layer) together read on interlayer. The transparent screen sheet can be a windshield (see paragraph 0074). Accordingly, Tao et al. disclose an interlayer and a windshield as presently claimed.
Tao et al. do not disclose the resin films (half-wave plate) having a Tg and a dimension change as presently claimed. Tao et al. do not disclose bonding layer 31 (first polymer layer) and bonding layer 41 (second polymer layer) comprises plasticizer as presently claimed.
Takagi discloses an optical compensating resin film produced by casting a resin exhibiting a glass transition temperature of 150 to 200 °C (see Abstract). The optical compensating film minimizes light leakage due to light scattering to improve image contrast (see paragraph 0002). The aforementioned glass transition temperatures improve optical and mechanical characteristics (see paragraph 0043). The optical compensating film has excellent dimensional stability (see paragraph 0170). The resin can be cellulose ester such as cellulose triacetate, i.e. triacetyl cellulose (see paragraph 0048).
In light of motivation for using optical compensating film comprising cellulose ester resin disclosed by Takagi as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use optical compensating film comprising cellulose ester of Takagi as each of the first resin film and the second resin film in Tao et al. in order to minimize light leakage due to light scattering to improve image contrast, to improve optical and mechanical characteristics as well as to improve dimensional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Tao et al. in view of Takagi disclose a polarization rotary film (first resin film and second resin film) comprising a cellulose ester having a glass transition temperature of 150 to 200 °C. Therefore, the polarization rotary film of Tao et al. in view of Takagi necessarily has a Tg as presently claimed.
Further, given that Tao et al. in view of Takagi disclose the polarization rotary film identical to that presently claimed that has excellent dimensional stability, the polarization rotary of Tao et al. in view of Takagi would necessarily inherently have a dimension change in either a machine direction or a cross-machine direction as presently claimed.
While, Tao et al. disclose the bonding layer 31 and the bonding layer 41 can comprise plasticized poly(vinyl acetal), Tao et al. in view of Takagi do not disclose a plasticizer as presently claimed.
D’Errico disclose a multiple layer glass panel comprising an interlayer, wherein the interlayer comprises a polymer sheet comprising a thermoplastic polymer and a polyphosphate ester plasticizer (see paragraph 0009). The thermoplastic polymer can be polyvinyl butyral and the polyphosphate ester plasticizer can be resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) (see paragraphs 0011 and 0020). The phosphate esters improve fire resistant character of polymer sheets (see paragraph 0007). The multiple layer glass panel can be windshields, windows, and other finished glazing products (see paragraph 0071).
In light of motivation for using polyphosphate ester plasticizer such as resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) disclosed by D’Errico as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use polyphosphate ester plasticizer such as resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate) of D’Errico in the first polymer layer (bonding layer 31) and/or the second polymer layer (bonding layer 41) of Tao et al. in view of Takagi in order to improve fire resistance of the first polymer layer and/or the second polymer layer, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Tao et al. in view of Takagi and D’Errico disclose the interlayer as set forth above. Further, D’Errico discloses acid scavenger agents including epoxide acid scavenger agents can be added to the polymer sheet to impart additional stability (see paragraphs 0012, 0048, and 0051). As evidenced by the present specification, acid scavengers agents are adhesion promoters (see paragraph 0068 of the specification as originally filed).
In light of motivation for using acid scavengers disclosed by D’Errico as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use acid scavengers in the first polymer layer (bonding layer 31) and/or the second polymer layer (bonding layer 41) of Tao et al. in view of Takagi in order to impart additional stability, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Tao et al. in view of Takagi and D’Errico disclose the first polymer layer, the polarization rotatory optical film and the second polymer layer identical to that utilized in the present invention. Therefore, it is inherent or obvious that the interfacial between at least one of the first polymer layer and film interface and the second polymer layer and film interface is at least 6 MPa as measured by the compressive shear adhesion test.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered. In light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above. All arguments except as set forth below are moot in light of new grounds of rejections.
Applicants argue that Tao states its resin film retardation is one-fourth of the wavelength or less. Abstract. And even mentions one-eighth of the wavelength or less or one-sixteenth of the wavelength or less. Para. [0076]. The Office states that Tao discloses that each resin film may have one-fourth of the wavelength; however, that does not equate to a half wave plate because there is an intervening image display layer. It is simply two quarter wavelength plates on either side. Further, Tao does not disclose a single half wave plate and teaches away from such a modification. Indeed, Tao provides comparative examples that highlight when higher retardation is used, excellent images could not be obtained. Lastly, Tao makes no mention of a Tg or dimension change. D’Errico and Wu fail to rectify the deficiencies of Tao as it also does not teach or suggest these limitations.
In light of amendments, rejection of claim 1 and claim 15 based on Tao is withdrawn. Specifically, given that Tao discloses an intervening image display layer between two quarter plates, Tao teaches away from a single or one half wave plate as well as plurality of wave plates disposed in direct contact with one another.
However, the rejection of claim 9 based on Tao is maintained. Nothing in claim 9 requires a half-wave plate and therefore the examples of Tao do not teach away from the present claims. Given that claim 9 do not recite a single or one half wave plate as well as plurality of wave plates disposed in direct contact with one another, Tao is applicable to claim 9. Further, in light of amendments, new grounds of rejections are set forth above.
Further, it is agreed that Tao alone does not disclose Tg or dimension change as claimed. However, these limitations are met by Tao et al. in view of Takagi and D’Errico as set forth above.
Regarding D’Errico, note that while D’Errico do not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, D’Errico is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely phosphate plasticizer, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787