CTNF 18/821,874 CTNF 99032 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler (US 4,166,871) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0409213) . Regarding claim 1, Schuler discloses a polarizing plate comprising a polarizer (Col. 1, line 11 teaches: linear light polarizers) and a protective layer on at least one surface of the polarizer (Col. 1, lines 32-37 teach: plastic support, serves as a cover or protective element; lines 63-65 teach: protective surface layer is on the polarizer), wherein the polarizer comprises a polyvinyl alcohol based film (Col. 1, line 32 teaches: polyvinyl alcohol film polarizer) containing a dichroic material (Col. 1, line 41 teaches: dichroic stain containing iodine; Col. 2, line 57 teaches: dichroic complex) and contains zinc cations (Col. 2, line 45 teaches: zinc chloride; Examiner notes that zinc chloride contains: zinc cations and chloride anion) and potassium cations (Col. 2, lines 54-55 teach: potassium iodide; Examiner notes that potassium iodide contains: potassium cations and iodide anions). Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein the polarizing plate has a value of 0.1 or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 1: Tc (400 nm)/Tc (730 nm), where Tc (400 nm) is a cross transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 400 nm (unit: %), and Tc (730 nm) is a cross transmittance of the polarizing plate at a wavelength of 730 nm (unit: %). However, optimizing wavelength specific cross transmittance is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ” In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ” In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Takeda discusses in [0030] controlling changes in cross transmittance at different wavelengths, including about 410 nm and 700 nm, increasing change at 410 nm and suppressing change at 700 nm; therefore selecting spectral relationships between blue and red wavelengths was a known result effective optical property of polarizing laminates identifying wavelength dependent cross transmittance characteristics as result-effective optical properties to improve color leakage characteristics and obtain a desired cross-transmittance relationship between long and short wavelengths. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a device wherein the polarizing plate has a value of 0.1 or less since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Regarding claim 14, the modified Schuler discloses an optical display apparatus (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler (US 4,166,871) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0409213), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ikeda et al. (US 2007/0146887) . Regarding claim 2, Schuler discloses the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1. Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein Tc (400 nm) is 0.010% or less and Tc (730 nm) is from 0.05% to 0.20%. Schuler and Ikeda are related because both disclose polarizing plates. Ikeda teaches a device wherein Tc (400 nm) is 0.010% or less ([1132] teaches: 410 nm, crossed nicols is 0.08% or less, which includes values in the claimed range; Examiner notes that the same motivation to optimize the specific to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) and Tc (730 nm) is from 0.05% to 0.20% ([1132] teaches: 700, nm, crossed nicols is preferably 0.3% or less, which includes values in the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuler in view of Ikeda and provide a device wherein Tc (400 nm) is 0.010% or less and Tc (730 nm) is from 0.05% to 0.20%. Doing so would allow for reduced light leakage and better color balance, thereby improving the overall performance of the optical system. Regarding claim 3, Schuler discloses an optical display apparatus (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 2 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler (US 4,166,871) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0409213), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Lee et al. (2021/0033763) . Regarding claim 4, the modified Schuler discloses the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1. Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein the zinc cations are present in an amount of 0.15 wt% or more, and the potassium cations are present in an amount of 0.55 wt% in the polarizer. Schuler and Lee are related because both disclose polarizers. Lee teaches disclose a device wherein the zinc cations are present in an amount of 0.15 wt% or more ([0028] teaches: zinc component with about 0.15 wt %), and the potassium cations are present in an amount of 0.55 wt% in the polarizer ([0027] teaches: potassium component with about 0.50 wt %). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuler in view of Lee and provide a device wherein the zinc cations are present in an amount of 0.15 wt% or more, and the potassium cations are present in an amount of 0.55 wt% in the polarizer. Doing so would allow for better durability and high temperature reliability, thereby improving the overall stability of the device. Regarding claim 5, the modified Schuler discloses an optical display apparatus (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 4. Regarding claim 6, the modified Schuler discloses the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1. Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein the polarizer contains the zinc cations and the potassium cations in a total amount of 0.60 wt% or more. Schuler and Lee are related because both disclose polarizers. Lee teaches a device wherein the polarizer contains the zinc cations and the potassium cations in a total amount of 0.60 wt% or more ([0028] teaches: zinc component with about 0.15 wt %; [0027] teaches: potassium component with about 0.50 wt %; total amount would be 0.65 wt%). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuler in view of Lee and provide a device wherein the polarizer contains the zinc cations and the potassium cations in a total amount of 0.60 wt% or more. Doing so would allow for better durability and high temperature reliability, thereby improving the overall stability of the device. Regarding claim 7, the modified Schuler discloses an optical display apparatus (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 6. Regarding claim 8, the modified Schuler discloses the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1. Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein the polarizer contains the zinc cations and the potassium cations in a weight ratio (zinc cations: potassium cations) of 1:2.5 or more. Schuler and Lee are related because both disclose polarizers. Lee teaches a device wherein the polarizer contains the zinc cations and the potassium cations in a weight ratio (zinc cations: potassium cations) of 1:2.5 or more ([0026] teaches: K/Zn ratio of 0.4, which is Zn/K ratio of 2.5 = 1:2.5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuler in view of Lee and provide a device wherein the polarizer contains the zinc cations and the potassium cations in a weight ratio (zinc cations: potassium cations) of 1:2.5 or more. Doing so would allow for better durability and high temperature reliability, thereby improving the overall stability of the device. Regarding claim 9, the modified Schuler discloses an optical display (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) apparatus comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 8 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler (US 4,166,871) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0409213), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kawai (US 2021/0009478) . Regarding claim 10, the modified Schuler discloses the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1. Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein the polyvinyl alcohol based film comprises a derivative of polyvinyl alcohol containing a hydrophilic functional group and a hydrophobic functional group. Schuler and Kawai are related because both disclose polyvinyl alcohol structures. Kawai teaches a device wherein the polyvinyl alcohol based film comprises a derivative of polyvinyl alcohol containing a hydrophilic functional group and a hydrophobic functional group ([0025] teaches: polyvinyl alcohol resin containing a hydrophilic functional group and a hydrophobic functional group). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuler in view of Kawai and provide a device wherein the polyvinyl alcohol based film comprises a derivative of polyvinyl alcohol containing a hydrophilic functional group and a hydrophobic functional group. Doing so would allow for better transmitted polarization and display contrast, thereby improving the overall performance of the optical system. Regarding claim 11, the modified Schuler discloses an optical display apparatus (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 10 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Schuler (US 4,166,871) in view of Takeda et al. (US 2020/0409213), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hirakata et al. (US 2010/0231830) in further view of Hasegawa et al. (WO 2019216120, Examiner has provided a machine translation) . Regarding claim 12, the modified Schuler discloses the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 1. Schuler fails to disclose a device wherein the polarizing plate has a single transmittance change rate of 3% or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 2: single transmittance change rate = [| Ts2 - Ts1 | / Ts1] x 100, where Ts1 is an initial single transmittance of the polarizing plate (unit: %), and Ts2 is a single transmittance of the polarizing plate after the polarizing plate is left at 105°C for 1,500 hours (unit: %). Schuler and Hirakata are related because both disclose polarizing plates. Hirakata teaches a device wherein the polarizing plate has a single transmittance change rate of 3% or less after polarizing plate is left at a specific temperature for a determined number of hours. ([0649] teaches change rate of light transmittance is preferably 3 or less after 500 hours at 60 degree C). Schuler and Hasegawa are related because both disclose optical system. Hasegawa teaches a device wherein properties are altered by being left at 105°C for 1,500 hours (]0087] teaches: heated at 105 degrees C; [0068] teaches: dry heat at 105°C for 1000 hours or more; Examiner notes that 1000 hours or more includes 1500 hours). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schuler in view of Hirakata and Hasegawa and provide a device wherein the polarizing plate has a single transmittance change rate of 3% or less, as calculated according to the following Equation 2: single transmittance change rate = [| Ts2 - Ts1 | / Ts1] x 100, where Ts1 is an initial single transmittance of the polarizing plate (unit: %), and Ts2 is a single transmittance of the polarizing plate after the polarizing plate is left at 105°C for 1,500 hours (unit: %). Doing so would allow for reduced transmittance change under elevated temperature long term durability conditions, thereby improving overall reliability and stability of the optical system. Regarding claim 13, the modified Schuler discloses an optical display apparatus (Takeda teaches an optical display panel; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged) comprising the polarizing plate as claimed in claim 12 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Ryu et al. (US 2017/0285236), O’Neill et al. (US 2015/0109693), Bae at al. (US 2013/0114137) and Saiki et al. (US 2010/0085641) all disclose relevant optical systems . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT). Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. John Sipes Examiner Art Unit 2872 /J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/821,874 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872
Prosecution Insights