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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enya (USPN 2024/0010917), in view of Hsieh et al. (USPN 2020/0400980).
With regard to claim 1,
Enya discloses an optical film (31,32,33), comprising a diffusion layer (31) including a polymer matrix (31P) and dispersed particles (31D)dispersed in the polymer matrix, the dispersed particles each containing a liquid crystal polymer (31LC) that is a polymer of a polymerizable liquid crystal compound and a non-polymerizable liquid crystal compound (LCM) serving as an optional component. While Enya does not specifically disclose the film where the diffusion layer includes a plurality of regions different from each other in alignment state of the liquid crystal polymer and/or in content ratio of the liquid crystal polymer, Hsieh et al. do disclose such a configuration (regions 102-1,102-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Hsieh et al. into the film of Enya in order to try to increase the versatility of the film.
With regard to claim 2,
Hsieh et al. disclose the optical film according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of regions are aligned in a predetermined pattern (See figures). The obviousness of the incorporation of the concept of Hsieh et al. into the film of Enya was addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
With regard to claim 3,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 1 wherein a maximum value of differences between hazes of parts aligned and unaligned (i.e., corresponding to the plurality of regions upon the incorporation of the concept of Hsieh et al.) is 10% or more in plan view (see, e.g., fig. 3). The obviousness of the incorporation of the concept of Hsieh et al. into the film of Enya was addressed in the rejection of claim 1.
With regard to claim 4,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 1, wherein the dispersed particles each further contain the liquid crystal compound (LCM).
With regard to claim 5,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 4, wherein a content ratio of the liquid crystal polymer with respect to a total content of the liquid crystal polymer and the liquid crystal compound is 5 wt % or more (See fig. 3).
With regard to claim 6,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 1, wherein a total content ratio of the liquid crystal polymer and the liquid crystal compound, when present, in the diffusion layer is from 30 wt % to 70 wt % (see paragraph 44).
With regard to claim 7,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 1, further comprising a first transparent substrate (32) arranged on a first main surface side of the diffusion layer.
With regard to claim 8,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 1, further comprising a second transparent substrate (33) arranged on a second main surface side of the diffusion layer.
With regard to claim 9,
Enya discloses the optical film according to claim 1, wherein the optical film (31,32,33) is free of an electrode layer.
With regard to claim 10,
Enya discloses an optical film (31,32,33), comprising a diffusion layer (31) including a polymer matrix (31P) and dispersed particles (31D) dispersed in the polymer matrix, the dispersed particles each containing a liquid crystal polymer (31LC) that is a polymer of a polymerizable liquid crystal compound, wherein the optical film exhibits hazes different from each other in accordance with an alignment state of the liquid crystal polymer in plan view (See fig. 3). While Enya does not specifically disclose the film where the diffusion layer includes a plurality of regions different from each other in alignment state of the liquid crystal polymer, Hsieh et al. do disclose such a configuration (regions 102-1,102-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Hsieh et al. into the film of Enya in order to try to increase the versatility of the film.
With regard to claim 11,
Enya discloses an optical film (31,32,33), comprising a diffusion layer (31) including a polymer matrix (31P) and dispersed particles (31D) dispersed in the polymer matrix, wherein the diffusion layer includes: dispersed particles each containing a polymerizable liquid crystal compound (31LC); and dispersed particles each containing a liquid crystal polymer (31LC) that is a polymer of the polymerizable liquid crystal compound, wherein the optical film exhibits hazes different from each other in accordance with an alignment state of the liquid crystal polymer in plan view (See fig. 3). While Enya does not specifically disclose the film where the diffusion layer includes a plurality of regions different from each other in alignment state of the liquid crystal polymer, Hsieh et al. do disclose such a configuration (regions 102-1,102-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Hsieh et al. into the film of Enya in order to try to increase the versatility of the film.
Claims 12, 13, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al. (USPN 2003/0117707), in view of Hsieh et al. (USPN 2020/0400980).
With regard to claim 12,
Uchida et al. disclose a method of producing an optical film, including: applying, to a first substrate, an application liquid containing a resin for forming a polymer matrix, a polymerizable liquid crystal compound (see paragraphs 29,36), and a solvent to provide an applied layer; drying the applied layer to provide a polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer including a polymer matrix and droplets dispersed in the polymer matrix, the droplets each containing the polymerizable liquid crystal compound (see paragraph 78); and polymerizing the polymerizable liquid crystal compound while applying a voltage from a first main surface side and a second main surface side of the polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer (See paragraph 79). While Uchida et al. do not specifically disclose the film where the diffusion layer includes a plurality of regions different from each other in alignment state of the liquid crystal polymer, Hsieh et al. do disclose such a configuration (regions 102-1,102-2), requiring different orientation voltages of Uchida et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate this concept of Hsieh et al. into the method of Uchida et al in order to try to increase the versatility of the film.
With regard to claim 13,
Uchida et al. incorporating the concept of Hsieh et al. disclose the method of producing an optical film according to claim 12. While Uchida et al. do not explicitly disclose the mechanism of applying the voltage, providing spaced electrodes across the region to which the voltage is to be applied was well known to and widely used by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention as was the fact that different spacing provides different voltage in the region to which the voltage is to be applied, and it would have been obvious to the same to incorporate into the method of Uchida et al. in order to apply the voltage as directed by Uchida et al.
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 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Uchida et al. (USPN 2003/0117707).
With regard to claim 14,
Uchida et al. disclose a method of producing an optical film, comprising: applying, to a first substrate, an application liquid containing a resin for forming a polymer matrix, a polymerizable liquid crystal compound (see paragraphs 29,36), and a solvent to provide an applied layer; drying the applied layer to provide a polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer including a polymer matrix and droplets dispersed in the polymer matrix, the droplets each containing the polymerizable liquid crystal compound (See paragraph 78); and irradiating a predetermined region with an active energy ray under a state in which a voltage is applied to the polymer dispersed liquid crystal layer to polymerize the polymerizable liquid crystal compound (See paragraph 63).
With regard to claim 15,
Uchida et al. disclose the method of producing an optical film according to claim 12, wherein the application liquid is an emulsion containing, as a dispersoid, liquid crystal particles each containing the polymerizable liquid crystal compound (see paragraph 78).
With regard to claim 16,
Uchida et al. disclose the method of producing an optical film according to claim 12, wherein the application liquid further contains a non-polymerizable liquid crystal compound (See paragraph 40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 2017/0269396, 6864951, 2021/0284766, 2019/0264034.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Raabe whose telephone number is (571)272-8434. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0530-1430.
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, James R Greece can be reached at (571)272-3711. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M RAABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875