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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/811,528 filed on August 21, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on August 25, 2023 (China CN 202311088881.2).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on 8/21/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “ the sum of the first thickness direction phase difference and the second thickness direction phase difference is less than 10” is indefinite. As can be seen by equation I in paragraph [0020] of the instant application the thickness direction phase difference is a length because is a dimensionless coefficient [(nx+ny)/2 - nz] times a distance d. Thus “10” cannot be evaluated without knowing the units. The thickness of the layers are in microns, but no values for nx, ny or nz are disclosed, such that the examiner cannot deduce from the specification what the actual units are. If the applicant wishes to keep claim 8, it seems likely that an affidavit will be required to explain how the units are inherent to the present disclosure. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, microns will be the assumed unit.
Regarding claim 11, the meaning of “wherein the stacked positive A-plate and negative A-plate … match with the linear polarizer” is indefinite. The specification as filed merely repeats this statement and does not explicitly provide any context for what aspect of the stacked plates need to “match” with the linear polarizer. Possibilities thereof include but are not limited to (1) have a matching z-component refractive index, (2) have similar material properties, (3) being correctly aligned with in terms of the slow-axis or (4) being arranged such that the claimed reflectivity is achieved. Given that the examiner is only guessing at the intended meaning, the examiner recommends either deleting this phrase or specifically reciting the property that needs to be matched. For the purpose of applying prior art, any laminated structure that includes all the recited layers will be considered to “match” in that they cooperate to obtain the desired optical properties. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong).
Regarding claim 1, Kong teaches “An anti-reflective film structure (optical film 300, paragraph [0056]: “[0056] FIG. 2 is a schematic view showing the external light anti-reflection principle of an optical film.”), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (organic light emitting display panel 400), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (120b paragraph [0053]: “the second phase delay layer 120b may be a λ/4 phase delay layer.”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0093]: “The first phase delay layer 120a and second phase delay layer 120b may each have forward wavelength dispersion phase delay… The forward wavelength dispersion phase delay has higher retardation of light having a short wavelength than retardation of light having a long wavelength” thus “forward wavelength dispersion” has the same meaning as “positive wavelength dispersion” see paragraph [0024] of the specification as filed.), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 4 120b is arranged on the light output side of 400);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (120a, paragraph [0053]: “the first phase delay layer 120a may be a λ/2 phase delay layer”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0093]: “The first phase delay layer 120a and second phase delay layer 120b may each have forward wavelength dispersion phase delay… The forward wavelength dispersion phase delay has higher retardation of light having a short wavelength than retardation of light having a long wavelength” thus “forward wavelength dispersion” has the same meaning as “positive wavelength dispersion” see paragraph [0024] of the specification as filed.), the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 4 120a is arranged on the top side of 120b away from 400), and one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a positive A-plate and the other one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a negative A-plate (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]: “[0022] The liquid crystal of the first phase delay layer and the liquid crystal of the second phase delay layer may have respective refractive indices satisfying Relationship Equation 1A or 1B.
nx>ny=nz Relationship Equation 1A:
nx<ny=nz Relationship Equation 1B:
In Relationship Equations 1A and 1B, nx is a refractive index at a slow axis of the first phase delay layer and the second phase delay layer, ny is a refractive index at a fast axis of the first phase delay layer and the second phase delay layer, and nz is a refractive index in the direction perpendicular to nx and ny.” Note that “=” would be understood as approximately equal to. Thus one of 120a and 120b is a positive A-plate and the other is a negative A-plate see definitions thereof in paragraph [0026] of the specification as filed.); and
a linear polarizer (polarization film 110, which is a linear polarizer, see blockage of linearly polarized light from 120a in the right-hand-side, outgoing light illustration half of Fig. 2 and explanations in paragraph [0057]), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 4 110 is arranged on the top side of 120a away from 120b).”
Regarding claim 2, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, wherein the half-wave phase difference compensation film has a first optical axis angle (paragraph [0174]: “λ/2 phase delay layer has a slow axis of 15°”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film has a second optical axis angle (paragraph [0174]: “the λ/4 phase delay layer has a slow axis of 75°”), and the first optical axis angle is different from the second optical axis angle (15° is different from 75°).”
Regarding claim 3, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 2, wherein the first optical axis angle is between 10° and 20° (paragraph [0174]: “λ/2 phase delay layer has a slow axis of 15°”), and the second optical axis angle is between 70° and 80° (paragraph [0174]: “the λ/4 phase delay layer has a slow axis of 75°”).”
Regarding claim 5, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, wherein an in-plane phase difference (e.g. paragraph [0095]: “the in-plane retardation (Re1 and Re2)” in Table 1 “in-phase retardation”) of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film is between 90 nanometers and 140 nanometers (Table 1 λ/4 in-phase retardation of 120 nm, see also paragraph [0096] “in-phase retardation (R.sub.e2) for a reference wavelength of the second phase delay layer 120b may be about 110 nm to about 160 nm”), and an in-plane phase difference of the half-wave phase difference compensation film is between 180 nanometers and 280 nanometers (Table 1 λ/2 in-phase retardation of 240 nm, see also paragraph [0096]: “in-phase retardation (R.sub.e1) for a reference wavelength of the first phase delay layer 120a may be about 230 nm to about 300 nm”).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. US 2017/0222188 A1 (hereafter Lee).
Regarding claim 8, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, wherein the positive A-plate has a first thickness direction phase difference (e.g. Table 1 thickness direction phase difference of 110 nm), the negative A-plate has a second thickness direction phase difference (e.g. Table 1 thickness direction phase difference of 57 nm), and the sum of the first thickness direction phase difference and the second thickness direction phase difference is (Table 1 lists this as 167 nm, however, because one of these meets relationship equation 1A and the other meets relationship equation 1B, these two phase differences are of opposite signs such that the absolute value of the sum should be 53 nm. See also paragraph [0102]: “The thickness direction retardation (R.sub.th0) of the first phase delay layer 120a and the second phase delay layer 120b may be the sum of the thickness direction retardation (R.sub.th1) of the first phase delay layer 120a and the thickness direction retardation (R.sub.th2) of the second phase delay layer 120b. For example, the thickness direction retardation (R.sub.th0) of the first phase delay layer 120a and the second phase delay layer 120b for a reference wavelength may be about −250 nm to about 250 nm.”) less than 10 (each of 250 nm, 167 nm and 53 nm are less than 10 µm).”’
In the alternative that Kong fails to teach “the sum of the first thickness direction phase difference and the second thickness direction phase difference is less than 10,” this limitation would also have been obvious as follows.
Lee teaches a display device with phase retardation layers.
Lee further teaches “the sum of the first thickness direction phase difference and the second thickness direction phase difference is less than 10 (paragraph [0038]: “when the second phase retardation layer 322 has a positive thickness-direction phase difference, the first phase retardation layer 321 may have a negative thickness direction phase difference, and when the second phase retardation layer 322 has a negative thickness-direction phase difference, the first phase retardation layer 321 may have a positive thickness direction phase difference. The thickness-direction phase difference of the first phase retardation layer 321 may be within about ±50 nm with respect to the thickness-direction phase difference of the second phase retardation layer 322. The thickness-direction phase difference size of the second phase retardation layer 322 may substantially correspond to the thickness-direction phase difference size of the first phase retardation layer 321.” If the thickness direction phase differences have opposite signs and substantially correspond to one another, then their sum is zero which is less than 10. Alternatively, within ±50 nm of each other in absolute value would result in a difference of at most 50 nm which is less than 10 µm).”
Thus Kong discloses the claimed invention except for the sum of the thickness direction phase differences of the two A plate retarders being less than 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the two layers to have substantially opposite phase differences, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the combined thickness direction phase difference is an art recognized results effective variable in that both Kong and Lee teach preferred ranges thereof (see Kong paragraph [0102] and Lee paragraph [0038]). Thus one would have been motivated to optimize the sum of the thickness phase differences because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Kong teaches a range thereof centered around a zero sum thickness phase difference.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US 2024/0118565 A1.
Regarding claim 11, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, wherein the stacked positive A-plate and negative A-plate have quarter-wave inverse wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0093]: “a combination of the first phase delay layer 120a and the second phase delay layer 120b may have an inverse wavelength dispersion phase delay.”), match with the linear polarizer (given that the three work together in combination to reduce unwanted reflections they “match”), and are applied to the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 4), so that reflectivity (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0057 teaches that the optical film has an anti-reflection effect on “incident unpolarized light having entered from the outside… preventing the external light reflection” and thus has a low reflectivity) is between 0.5% and 2.0% (Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above with respect to claims 1 and 11 is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and have a reflectivity between 0.5% and 2.0%. See MPEP §2114(I)) “If an examiner concludes that a functional limitation is an inherent characteristic of the prior art, then to establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness, the examiner should explain that the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432. See also Bettcher Industries, Inc. v. Bunzl USA, Inc., 661 F.3d 629, 639-40,100 USPQ2d 1433, 1440 (Fed. Cir. 2011).”).”
In the alternative that Kong fails to teach “so that reflectivity is between 0.5% and 2.0%” this limitation would also have been obvious as follows:
Wang teaches (claim 1) “An anti-reflective film structure (Fig. 4), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (display panel 10, paragraph [0026]: “organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs),”), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (the first sub-layer 32 is a quarter-wave plate)… the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 432 is on 20 which is on 10);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (the second sub-layer 34 is a half-wave plate)… the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 4 34 is on 32 away from 10)… and
a linear polarizer (linear polarizer 40), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 4 40 is on 34 away from 32).”
(claim 11) The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1,… applied to the organic light-emitting diode display panel (display panel 10, paragraph [0026]: “organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs),”), so that reflectivity is between 0.5% and 2.0% (paragraph [0063]: “as shown in FIG. 4… Thus, according to some embodiments, by the design of the optical layer in the electronic device, the effect of low reflectivity may be achieved.” and paragraph [0032]: “In the present disclosure, “low reflectivity” means the reflectivity is lower than 10%, 8%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 0.5%, or lower.”).”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the reflectivity of the optical film of Kong so that the reflectivity is between 0.5% and 2.0% because Wang teaches that such a structure that combines a linear polarizer stacked on a half-wave plate, stacked on a quarter-wave plate, stacked on an OLED display can achieve a desired low reflectivity such as less than 2% and Kong in Fig. 2 teaches that the optical film has an anti-reflection effect on “incident unpolarized light having entered from the outside… preventing the external light reflection” (paragraph [0057]).
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 1-3, 5-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohisa et al. US 2020/0292739 A1 (hereafter Tomohisa) in view of Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong).
Regarding claim 1, Tomohisa teaches “An anti-reflective film structure (Fig. 5), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (display cells 16 and 26, paragraph [0011]: “organic electroluminescence display”), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (14Q and 24Q paragraph [0035]: “the Q layers 14Q and 24Q may each typically function as a λ/4 plate”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0059]: “The retardation layers may each show… a positive wavelength dispersion characteristic,”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 5, 14Q is on 16 and 24Q is on 26);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (14H and 24H paragraph [0035]: “the H layers 14H and 24H may each typically function as a λ/2 plate”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0059]: “The retardation layers may each show… a positive wavelength dispersion characteristic,”), the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 5 14H is on 14Q away from 16 and 24H is on 24Q away from 26), one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a positive A-plate (paragraph [0057]: “The refractive index characteristic of each of the retardation layers typically shows a relationship of nx>ny=nz.” where this is the characteristic of a positive A-plate see paragraph [0026] of the specification of the instant application.) and the other one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a… A-plate (paragraph [0057]: “The refractive index characteristic of each of the retardation layers typically shows a relationship of nx>ny=nz.” where this is the characteristic of an A-plate see paragraph [0026] of the specification of the instant application.)… and
a linear polarizer (polarizers 12 and 22, which are linear polarizers in that together with the retardation layers they form a circular polarizer see paragraph [0005]), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 5, 12 and 22 are on 14H and 24H away from 14Q and 24Q).”
However, Tomohisa fails to teach “and the other one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a negative A-plate.”
Kong teaches “An anti-reflective film structure (optical film 300, paragraph [0056]: “[0056] FIG. 2 is a schematic view showing the external light anti-reflection principle of an optical film.”), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (organic light emitting display panel 400), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (120b paragraph [0053]: “the second phase delay layer 120b may be a λ/4 phase delay layer.”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0093]: “The first phase delay layer 120a and second phase delay layer 120b may each have forward wavelength dispersion phase delay… The forward wavelength dispersion phase delay has higher retardation of light having a short wavelength than retardation of light having a long wavelength” thus “forward wavelength dispersion” has the same meaning as “positive wavelength dispersion” see paragraph [0024] of the specification as filed.), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 4 120b is arranged on the light output side of 400);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (120a, paragraph [0053]: “the first phase delay layer 120a may be a λ/2 phase delay layer”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0093]: “The first phase delay layer 120a and second phase delay layer 120b may each have forward wavelength dispersion phase delay… The forward wavelength dispersion phase delay has higher retardation of light having a short wavelength than retardation of light having a long wavelength” thus “forward wavelength dispersion” has the same meaning as “positive wavelength dispersion” see paragraph [0024] of the specification as filed.), the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 4 120a is arranged on the top side of 120b away from 400), and one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a positive A-plate and the other one of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film being a negative A-plate (paragraphs [0022]-[0023]: “[0022] The liquid crystal of the first phase delay layer and the liquid crystal of the second phase delay layer may have respective refractive indices satisfying Relationship Equation 1A or 1B.
nx>ny=nz Relationship Equation 1A:
nx<ny=nz Relationship Equation 1B:
In Relationship Equations 1A and 1B, nx is a refractive index at a slow axis of the first phase delay layer and the second phase delay layer, ny is a refractive index at a fast axis of the first phase delay layer and the second phase delay layer, and nz is a refractive index in the direction perpendicular to nx and ny.” Note that “=” would be understood as approximately equal to. Thus one of 120a and 120b is a positive A-plate and the other is a negative A-plate see definitions thereof in paragraph [0026] of the specification as filed.); and
a linear polarizer (polarization film 110, which is a linear polarizer, see blockage of linearly polarized light from 120a in the right-hand-side, outgoing light illustration half of Fig. 2 and explanations in paragraph [0057]), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 4 110 is arranged on the top side of 120a away from 120b).”
It is a well-established proposition that the substation of one known element for another which obtains predictable results is within ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(I)(B). To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components;
(2) a finding that the substituted components and their functions were known in the art;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
In the instant case:
(1) the prior art, Tomohisa, teaches an anti-reflective structure which differs from the claimed structure by the substitution of the component of a positive A-plate retarder with another component, a negative A-plate retarder;
(2) the component of a negative A-plate retarder and its function were known in the art in view of Kong;
(3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one A-plate retarder for another A-plate retarder, and the results of the substitution would have predictably been to optimize the retardance characteristics of the stacked A-plate retarders.
(4) the Graham factual inquiries have been discussed above.
Thu, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a negative A-plate retarder for one of the two retarders as taught by Kong in the device of Tomohisa and the results thereof would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 2, the Tomohisa – Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1,” and Tomohisa further teaches “wherein the half-wave phase difference compensation film has a first optical axis angle (paragraph [0063]: “the angle formed by the slow axis of the H layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer is preferably from 10° to 20°, more preferably from 12° to 18°, still more preferably about 15°”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film has a second optical axis angle (paragraph [0063]: “the angle formed by the slow axis of the Q layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer is preferably from 70° to 80°, more preferably from 72° to 80°, still more preferably about 75°.”), and the first optical axis angle is different from the second optical axis angle (15° is different from 75°).”
Regarding claim 3, the Tomohisa – Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 2,” and Tomohisa further teaches “wherein the first optical axis angle is between 10° and 20° (paragraph [0063]: “the angle formed by the slow axis of the H layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer is preferably from 10° to 20°, more preferably from 12° to 18°, still more preferably about 15°”), and the second optical axis angle is between 70° and 80° (paragraph [0063]: “the angle formed by the slow axis of the Q layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer is preferably from 70° to 80°, more preferably from 72° to 80°, still more preferably about 75°.”).”
Regarding claim 5, the Tomohisa – Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1,” and Tomohisa further teaches “wherein an in-plane phase difference of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film is between 90 nanometers and 140 nanometers (paragraph [0063]: “The thickness and in-plane retardation Re(550) of the Q layer are as described in the section D-1 for a single layer.” and paragraph [0057]: “The in-plane retardation Re(550) of each of the retardation layers is… still more preferably from 120 nm to 160 nm”), and an in-plane phase difference of the half-wave phase difference compensation film is between 180 nanometers and 280 nanometers (paragraph [0063]: “the in-plane retardation Re(550) of the H layer is… still more preferably from 250 nm to 280 nm”).”
Regarding claim 6, the Tomohisa - Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1,” and Tomohisa further teaches “further comprising a plurality of optical adhesive layers (paragraph [0038]: “The polarizers, the protective layer (if present), and the retardation layers that are constituents for the image display apparatus are specifically described below. The respective layers and an optical film forming the image display apparatus are laminated via any appropriate adhesion layer (e.g., a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer or an adhesive layer)”) respectively arranged between the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5 the optical film forming the image display, 16 and 26 are laminated to 14Q and 24Q by an adhesion layer), between the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film (see paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5 14Q and 24Q are laminated to 14H and 24H by an adhesion layer), and between the half-wave phase difference compensation film and the linear polarizer (see paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5 14H and 24H are laminated to 12 and 22 by an adhesion layer).”
Regarding claim 7, the Tomohisa – Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 6,” and Tomohisa further teaches “wherein a material of the optical adhesive layer is selected from one of an optically clear adhesive, a liquid optically clear adhesive, and a pressure sensitive adhesive or a combination thereof (paragraph [0038]: “The polarizers, the protective layer (if present), and the retardation layers that are constituents for the image display apparatus are specifically described below. The respective layers and an optical film forming the image display apparatus are laminated via any appropriate adhesion layer (e.g., a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer or an adhesive layer)” furthermore the adhesives are optically clear, otherwise the display would not function as a display).”
Regarding claim 9, the Tomohisa – Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1,” and Tomohisa further teaches “wherein a thickness of each of the positive A-plate and the negative A-plate is between 10 microns and 40 microns (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]: “When the retardation layers are each a stretched film of a resin film, the thickness of each of the retardation layers may be, for example, from 10 μm to 50 μm…. In the case where the H layer is a stretched film of a resin film, the thickness of the H layer may be, for example, from 20 μm to 70 μm.” The disclosed ranges significantly overlap with the claimed ranges such that the claimed ranges are considered to be anticipated.).”
Regarding claim 10, the Tomohisa – Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1,” and Tomohisa further teaches “wherein each of the [wave plate retarders] is manufactured by a stretching process (paragraphs [0062]-[0063]: “When the retardation layers are each a stretched film of a resin film…. In the case where the H layer is a stretched film of a resin film”).”
The combination of references introduced for claim 1 served to modify Tomohisa such that the two retardation layers comprised a positive and a negative A-plate as taught by Kong. Thus the limitation “wherein each of the positive A-plate and the negative A-plate is manufactured by a stretching process” is met by the combination of references.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Emori et al. US 2021/0181398.
Regarding claim 4, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 2,” however, Kong fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first optical axis angle is between 70° and 80°, and the second optical axis angle is between 10° and 20°.”
Emori teaches (claim 1) “An anti-reflective film structure (Fig. 2, which is anti-reflective see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (display element 10, which can be and OLED see e.g. paragraph [0064]), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (λ/4 retardation layer 20a) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0071]: “The λ/4 retardation layer (B1) is not particularly limited as long as Condition 1 is satisfied, but from the viewpoint of versatility, it is preferable that it exhibit positive dispersion.”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 2 20a is on 10);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (λ/2 retardation layer 20b) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0077]: “[0077] The λ/2 retardation layer (B2) is not particularly limited, but from the viewpoint of versatility, it is preferable that it have positive dispersion.”), the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 2, 20b is on the top side of 20a away from 10), …and
a linear polarizer (polarizer 30 which is just a film and thus is a linear polarizer not a circular polarizer), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 2, 30 is on 20b away from 20a).”
(claim 2) The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, wherein the half-wave phase difference compensation film has a first optical axis angle (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°.”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film has a second optical axis angle, and the first optical axis angle is different from the second optical axis angle (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°.).”
(claim 4) The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 2, wherein the first optical axis angle is between 70° and 80° (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°.” Given that 75° is the center of the claimed range, Emori teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.), and the second optical axis angle is between 10° and 20° (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°. Given that 15° is the center of the claimed range, Emori teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range).”
Emori also teaches (paragraphs [0080]-[0082]): When the λ/4 retardation layer (B1) and the λ/2 retardation layer (B2) are applied as the retardation layer (B), an angle formed by the orientation axis of each retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer preferably falls within the following range (i) or (ii):
(i) As a first example, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°. Therefore, in this case, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°.
(ii) As a second example, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°. Therefore, in this case, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°.”
Kong discloses the claimed invention except that the first and second optical axis angles are 15° and 75° respectively rather than 75° and 15°. Emori shows that switching the optical axis angles of the two retardation layers is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two choices for the pair of angles of the slow axis of the retardation layers were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute first and second optical axis angles of 75° and 15° respectively rather than 15° and 75° and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomohisa et al. US 2020/0292739 A1 (hereafter Tomohisa) in view of Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Emori et al. US 2021/0181398.
Regarding claim 4, the Tomohisa - Kong combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 2,” however, Tomohisa fails to explicitly teach “wherein the first optical axis angle is between 70° and 80°, and the second optical axis angle is between 10° and 20°.”
Emori teaches (claim 1) “An anti-reflective film structure (Fig. 2, which is anti-reflective see paragraphs [0004]-[0005]), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (display element 10, which can be and OLED see e.g. paragraph [0064]), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (λ/4 retardation layer 20a) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0071]: “The λ/4 retardation layer (B1) is not particularly limited as long as Condition 1 is satisfied, but from the viewpoint of versatility, it is preferable that it exhibit positive dispersion.”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 2 20a is on 10);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (λ/2 retardation layer 20b) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0077]: “[0077] The λ/2 retardation layer (B2) is not particularly limited, but from the viewpoint of versatility, it is preferable that it have positive dispersion.”), the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 2, 20b is on the top side of 20a away from 10), …and
a linear polarizer (polarizer 30 which is just a film and thus is a linear polarizer not a circular polarizer), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 2, 30 is on 20b away from 20a).”
(claim 2) The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, wherein the half-wave phase difference compensation film has a first optical axis angle (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°.”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film has a second optical axis angle, and the first optical axis angle is different from the second optical axis angle (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°.).”
(claim 4) The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 2, wherein the first optical axis angle is between 70° and 80° (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°.” Given that 75° is the center of the claimed range, Emori teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range.), and the second optical axis angle is between 10° and 20° (paragraph [0082]: “an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°. Given that 15° is the center of the claimed range, Emori teaches the claimed range with sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed range).”
Emori also teaches (paragraphs [0080]-[0082]): When the λ/4 retardation layer (B1) and the λ/2 retardation layer (B2) are applied as the retardation layer (B), an angle formed by the orientation axis of each retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer preferably falls within the following range (i) or (ii):
(i) As a first example, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°. Therefore, in this case, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°.
(ii) As a second example, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/2 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 75±15° and more preferably 75±13°. Therefore, in this case, an angle formed by the slow axis of the λ/4 retardation layer and the absorption axis of the polarizer layer is preferably 15±8° and more preferably 15±6°.”
Tomohisa discloses the claimed invention except that the first and second optical axis angles are 15° and 75° respectively rather than 75° and 15°. Emori shows that switching the optical axis angles of the two retardation layers is an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because these two choices for the pair of angles of the slow axis of the retardation layers were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute first and second optical axis angles of 75° and 15° respectively rather than 15° and 75° and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (I)(B).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. US 2017/0031074 (hereafter Kong) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomohisa et al. US 2020/0292739 A1 (hereafter Tomohisa).
Regarding claim 6, Kong teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 1, further comprising a plurality of optical adhesive layers (first and second adhesives 115a and 115b) respectively… between the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film (115b is between 120b and 120a see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0108]), and between the half-wave phase difference compensation film and the linear polarizer (115a is between 120a and 110 see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0108]).”
However, Kong fails to explicitly teach “arranged between the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the organic light-emitting diode display panel.” In particular, Kong teaches an organic light emitting display including an organic light emitting display panel 400 and an optical film 300, but does not explicitly teach how the optical film is attached to the display panel.
Tomohisa teaches (claim 1) “An anti-reflective film structure (Fig. 5), adapted to be applied to an organic light-emitting diode display panel (display cells 16 and 26, paragraph [0011]: “organic electroluminescence display”), wherein the anti-reflective film structure comprises:
a quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (14Q and 24Q paragraph [0035]: “the Q layers 14Q and 24Q may each typically function as a λ/4 plate”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0059]: “The retardation layers may each show… a positive wavelength dispersion characteristic,”), the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 5, 14Q is on 16 and 24Q is on 26);
a half-wave phase difference compensation film (14H and 24H paragraph [0035]: “the H layers 14H and 24H may each typically function as a λ/2 plate”) with positive wavelength dispersion (paragraph [0059]: “The retardation layers may each show… a positive wavelength dispersion characteristic,”), the half-wave phase difference compensation film being arranged on a side of the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film away from the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see Fig. 5 14H is on 14Q away from 16 and 24H is on 24Q away from 26), … and
a linear polarizer (polarizers 12 and 22, which are linear polarizers in that together with the retardation layers they form a circular polarizer see paragraph [0005]), arranged on a side of the half-wave phase difference compensation film away from the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film (see Fig. 5, 12 and 22 are on 14H and 24H away from 14Q and 24Q).”
(claim 6) “further comprising a plurality of optical adhesive layers (paragraph [0038]: “The polarizers, the protective layer (if present), and the retardation layers that are constituents for the image display apparatus are specifically described below. The respective layers and an optical film forming the image display apparatus are laminated via any appropriate adhesion layer (e.g., a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer or an adhesive layer)”) respectively arranged between the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the organic light-emitting diode display panel (see paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5 the optical film forming the image display, 16 and 26 are laminated to 14Q and 24Q by an adhesion layer), between the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film and the half-wave phase difference compensation film (see paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5 14Q and 24Q are laminated to 14H and 24H by an adhesion layer), and between the half-wave phase difference compensation film and the linear polarizer (see paragraph [0038] and Fig. 5 14H and 24H are laminated to 12 and 22 by an adhesion layer).”
It is a well-established proposition that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a pressure sensitive adhesive as the material to attach the optical film to the display panel as taught by Tomohisa in the display of Kong since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 7, the Kong – Tomohisa combination teaches “The anti-reflective film structure according to claim 6,” and Kong further teaches “wherein a material of the optical adhesive layer is selected from one of an optically clear adhesive, a liquid optically clear adhesive, and a pressure sensitive adhesive or a combination thereof (paragraph [0108] “The first and second adhesives 115a and 115b may be, for example, a pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA).” furthermore the adhesives are optically clear, otherwise the display would not function as a display).”
Moreover, in the combination introduced for claim 6 above, Tomohisa teaches “wherein a material of the optical adhesive layer is selected from one of an optically clear adhesive, a liquid optically clear adhesive, and a pressure sensitive adhesive or a combination thereof (paragraph [0038]: “The polarizers, the protective layer (if present), and the retardation layers that are constituents for the image display apparatus are specifically described below. The respective layers and an optical film forming the image display apparatus are laminated via any appropriate adhesion layer (e.g., a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer or an adhesive layer)” furthermore the adhesives are optically clear, otherwise the display would not function as a display).”
Thus, the combination of references introduced for claim 6 above, which served to add an adhesive between the display and the quarter-wave phase difference compensation film, further teaches “wherein a material of the optical adhesive layer is selected from one of an optically clear adhesive, a liquid optically clear adhesive, and a pressure sensitive adhesive or a combination thereof” for each of the plurality of respective adhesive layers, because Kong already taught two optically clear, pressure sensitive adhesive layer and Tomohisa teaches that all three adhesive layers are optically clear, pressure sensitive adhesive layers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakai et al. US 2019/0278010 A1 “CIRCULARLY POLARIZING PLATE, DISPLAY DEVICE, AND MULTILAYER RETARDER” paragraphs [0009], [0039], [0091], [0116], [0117], pertinent to the state of the art.
Hwang et al. US 2023/0171995 A1 “DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME” Fig. 4 paragraphs [0059]-[0082] pertinent to the state of the art.
Beon et al. US 2026/0040801 A1 “POLARIZING FILM, DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE SAME, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME” see Fig. 4 and paragraph [0078] pertinent to at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights