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 .
Non-Finality of Office Action
Because this Office Action contains new grounds of rejection which were not necessitated by amendment, this second action on the merits has been made NON-FINAL.
Newly discovered prior art reference Hisanaga (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0302698 A1) anticipates or renders obvious Claims 1, 2 and 9. Thus, the previous indication of allowability for the previously-presented Claim 7 (which is now Claim 1 by virtue of the amendments of July 15, 2026) is withdrawn and new grounds of rejection are presented herein based upon Hisanaga.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection based on the newly-cited Hisanaga reference.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hisanaga et al., U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 2024/0302698 A1, newly-cited in the present Office Action.
Regarding Claim 1, Hisanaga discloses: An optical element comprising (the Office notes that the term “comprising” is an open-ended transitional phrase which permits additional elements or features), in the following order:
a first alignment film (second optically-anisotropic layer 36b, as depicted in FIG. 10 of Hisanaga, may include an alignment film 32 at its lower side; paragraphs [0073], [0107], [0187] and FIGS. 1, 2, 7-10 of Hisanaga);
a first optically anisotropic layer containing first anisotropic molecules (second optically-anisotropic layer 36b having liquid crystal compound [molecules] 40 therein; paragraph [0065] and FIG. 10 of Hisanaga);
a second alignment film (first optically-anisotropic layer 36a, as depicted in FIG. 10 of Hisanaga, may include an alignment film 32 at its lower side; paragraphs [0073], [0107], [0187] and FIGS. 1, 2, 7-10 of Hisanaga); and
a second optically anisotropic layer containing second anisotropic molecules (first optically-anisotropic layer 36a having liquid crystal compound [molecules] 40 therein; paragraph [0065] and FIG. 10 of Hisanaga);
wherein in a plan view:
alignment directions of the first anisotropic molecules and alignment directions of the second anisotropic molecules each rotate in a plane from a central portion to an end portion of the optical element (based on the side-view shown in, e.g., FIG. 10 of Hisanaga, orientation of liquid crystal compound [molecules] 40 may rotate in a horizontal plane from a central portion of each of the optically-anisotropic layers 36a, 36b to an edge [end] portion; paragraphs [0065], [0141] and FIG. 10 of Hisanaga);
a rotation direction of the first anisotropic molecules is opposite to a rotation direction of the second anisotropic molecules (a rotation direction of the optical axis in the liquid crystal alignment pattern of the first optically-anisotropic layer 36a and a rotation direction of the optical axis in the liquid crystal alignment pattern of the second optically-anisotropic layer 36b are opposite to each other; paragraph [0069] and FIG. 10 of Hisanaga).
Regarding Claim 9, Hisanaga discloses the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses: wherein from a central portion toward an end portion of the optical element, the first anisotropic molecule and the second anisotropic molecule each have a discrete molecular alignment pattern (orientation of liquid crystal compound [molecules] 40 are shown having discrete alignment patterns; paragraphs [0065], [0141] and FIGS. 1, 2, 7-10 of Hisanaga).
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanaga.
Regarding Claim 2, Hisanaga discloses the limitations of Claim 1, but does not appear to disclose: further comprising: a third alignment film disposed on a surface of the second optically anisotropic layer opposite to the second alignment film; and a third optically anisotropic layer disposed on a surface of the third alignment film opposite to the second optically anisotropic layer and containing third anisotropic molecules.
However, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04, Section VI, Subsection B, citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669; 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
In the present case, Hisanaga discloses that the first and second alignment films enable aligning the liquid crystal compound to the predetermined liquid crystal alignment pattern during the formation of the optically-anisotropic layer, and the first and second optically anisotropic layers enable diffraction of obliquely incident light, and that by the length over which rotation occurs, the liquid crystal alignment pattern can be used to adjust the diffraction angle (see, e.g., paragraphs [0065]-[0069], [0082] of Hisanaga).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply duplicate the disclosed alignment films and anisotropic layers to provide a third set of these layers to further effectuate the diffractive effect and/or adjust the diffraction angle, as evidenced by paragraphs [0065]-[0069], [0082] of Hisanaga.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if amended to include 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.
With respect to Claims 3 and 5, although the prior art discloses various optical elements, including, in the following order:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
128
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
102
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above features further comprising:
PNG
media_image4.png
150
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
OR
PNG
media_image5.png
150
602
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 8, although the prior art discloses various optical elements, including, in the following order:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
128
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest the above features further comprising:
PNG
media_image6.png
208
608
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
29
466
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claims 4 and 6, these claims depend from Claims 3 and 5, respectively, and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Examiner Note – Consider Entirety of References
Although various text and figures of the cited references have been specifically cited in this Office Action to show disclosures and teachings which correspond to specific claim language, Applicant is advised to consider the complete disclosure of each reference, including portions which have not been specifically cited by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN S DUNNING whose telephone number is 571-272-4879. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 10:30AM to 7:00PM Eastern Time Zone. 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN S DUNNING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
