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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/2/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3 September 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yanai (US 2019/0154896) made of record in the IDS filed 10/2/2024 (hereafter Yanai).
Regarding claim 1, Yanai discloses an optical film comprising: a plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers (see at least Fig. 2 and paragraph [0050], where polarizers 12 and 16 are the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers) containing a dichroic substance (see at least paragraph [0060]); and at least one interlayer disposed between the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers (see at least Fig. 2), wherein all of the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers have an absorption axis parallel to a thickness direction (see at least paragraphs [0050]-[0051]), thicknesses of the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers are all 3.0 μm or less (see at least paragraph [0078], where the thickness of polarizers 12 and 16 is more preferably in a range of 0.3 to 3 μm), a total thickness of the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers is 4.0 μm or more (see at least paragraph [0078]), with regard to the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers, a total value calculated by multiplying a ratio of a content of the dichroic substance with respect to a mass of the light absorption anisotropic layer by the thickness of the light absorption anisotropic layer is 1.10 μm or more (see at least paragraph [0073], where a content of the dichroic substance with respect to a mass of the light absorption anisotropic layer is more preferably in a range of 1.0% to 30.0%, thus multiplying the content of the dichroic substrate by the thickness of the light absorption layer is at most 3 μm x 30.0% = 0.9 μm), and the interlayer is a layer in which an in-plane retardation at a wavelength of 550 nm is 25 nm or less (see at least paragraph [0080]) and an absolute value of a thickness-direction retardation at the wavelength of 550 nm is 25 nm or less (see at least paragraphs [0081] and [0090]).
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.
Claims 2-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US 2019/0154896) made of record in the IDS filed 10/2/2024 (hereafter Yanai).
Regarding claim 2, Yanai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yanai also discloses that the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers are aligned (see at least Fig. 2).
Yanai does not specifically disclose that alignment degrees of the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers are all 0.93 or more.
However, 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). Among the benefits of alignment degrees of the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers being all 0.93 or more include providing a narrow viewing angle (see at least paragraph [0016] of Yanai).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical film of Yanai so that alignment degrees of the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers are all 0.93 or more for the purpose of providing a narrow viewing angle (see at least paragraph [0016] of Yanai).
Regarding claims 3 and 7, Yanai discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Yanai also discloses an alignment layer (see at least paragraph [0117]).
Yanai does not specifically disclose that the alignment layer meets the requirements of the interlayer such that it has an in-plane retardation at a wavelength of 550 nm of 25 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness-direction retardation at the wavelength of 550 nm of 25 nm or less.
However, 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). Among the benefits of the alignment layer meeting the requirements of the interlayer such that it has an in-plane retardation at a wavelength of 550 nm of 25 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness-direction retardation at the wavelength of 550 nm of 25 nm or less include ensuring that the alignment film does not add extraneous retardation beyond that which is desired from the other interlayers.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical film of Yanai so that the alignment layer meets the requirements of the interlayer such that it has an in-plane retardation at a wavelength of 550 nm of 25 nm or less and an absolute value of a thickness-direction retardation at the wavelength of 550 nm of 25 nm or less for the purpose of ensuring that the alignment film does not add extraneous retardation beyond that which is desired from the other interlayers.
Claims 4-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai (US 2019/0154896) made of record in the IDS filed 10/2/2024 (hereafter Yanai) as applied to claims 1, 2, and 3 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 10,895,777) (hereafter Lin).
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 9, Yanai discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Yanai also discloses a viewing angle control system comprising the optical film according to claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0016]) and the optical film being applied to a display device such as a liquid crystal display (see at least paragraph [0138]).
Yanai does not specifically disclose a polarizer having an absorption axis in an in-plane direction.
However, Lin teaches a liquid crystal display comprising a viewing angle control system and a polarizer having an absorption axis in an in-plane direction (see at least Fig. 3 and Col. 10, lines 12-44, where the display module 130 is a liquid crystal display (LC130), viewing angle switching module 120 is a viewing angle control system, and 132 is a polarizer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yanai to include the teachings of Lin so that the system comprises a polarizer having an absorption axis in an in-plane direction for the purpose of operating as part of a liquid crystal display.
Regarding claim 5, Yanai as modified by Lin discloses all of the limitations of claim 4.
Yanai also disclose an image display device comprising a display element; and the viewing angle control system according to claim 4, wherein the viewing angle control system is disposed on at least one main surface of the display element (see at least paragraph [0138]).
Regarding claim 6, Yanai as modified by Lin discloses all of the limitations of claim 5.
Yanai also discloses that the plurality of light absorption anisotropic layers included in the viewing angle control system are arranged on a viewing side with respect to the polarizer included in the viewing angle control system (see at least paragraph [0138], where the viewing angle control system is placed on the display screen).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights