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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of 16-24 in the reply filed on 8/19/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 16-19,21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi (US 20100202051, of record) in view of Neavin (6783349, of record).
Regarding claim 16, Yoshimi teaches An optical film comprising:
a polarizer (Abstract: “polarizing plate... a base material layer and a hydrophilic polymer layer...”) comprising an absorbing polarizer layer ([3], “dichroic iodine”), wherein for substantially normally incident light, for orthogonal first and second polarization states, and for at least one wavelength in a wavelength range of about 420 nm to about 680 nm (e.g., [113], “550 nm”), the polarizer substantially transmits the incident light having the first, but not the second, polarization state;
an olefin layer ({38], “cyclic polyolefin” as the base material layer) disposed on the polarizer, the olefin layer comprising cyclic olefin copolymer, cyclic olefin polymer, or a blend thereof, and
a bonding layer ([2], “...both sides of the polarizer with an adhesive”) disposed between, and bonding together, the olefin layer and the polarizer ([87], “The base material layer may be used, as it is, as a transparent protective film for the polarizing plate”),
wherein the bonding, olefin and absorbing polarizer layers are coextruded and co-stretched with one another ([27-28], “co-extruding”, “stretching”, it is understood the bonding layer undergoes the same process as being a layer in between, and stretching means costretching as it is upon the laminate).
Yoshimi does not teach the bonding layer comprising ethylene copolymer.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Neavin teaches a bonding layer comprising ethylene copolymer (col. 39, lines 57-58, “ethylene-containing copolymers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bonding layer comprising ethylene copolymer as taught by Neavin in the teaching of Yoshimi for the purposes of design choices.
Regarding claim 17, Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach The optical film of claim 16, wherein the olefin layer has an unstructured major surface opposite the polarizer.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the olefin layer has an unstructured major surface opposite the polarizer would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of having desired appearance.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Yoshimi in view of Neavin by having the olefin layer has an unstructured major surface opposite the polarizer for the purposes of having desired appearance.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 17, but does not explicitly teach The optical film of claim 17, wherein the unstructured major surface has an average peak-to-valley surface roughness Rz of less than about 1 micrometer.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the unstructured major surface has an average peak-to-valley surface roughness Rz of less than about 1 micrometer would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of having desired appearance (since the polarizer is used for visual light, larger Rz is likely create unwanted interference effects).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of Yoshimi in view of Neavin by having the unstructured major surface has an average peak-to-valley surface roughness Rz of less than about 1 micrometer for the purposes of having desired appearance.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach The optical film of claim 16, wherein the polarizer further comprises a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers disposed on the absorbing polarizer layer, each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness less than about 500 nm.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers disposed on the absorbing polarizer layer, each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness less than about 500 nm would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of improving transmission (as antireflection film for visual light).
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Yoshimi in view of Neavin by having a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers disposed on the absorbing polarizer layer, each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness less than about 500 nm for the purposes of improving transmission.
Regarding claim 21, Yoshimi further teaches The optical film of claim 16, wherein the absorbing polarizer layer comprises a polymeric layer comprising oriented dye molecules dispersed therein (Abstract: “at least a dichroic substance is adsorbed to the hydrophilic polymer layer”).
Regarding claim 22, Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach The optical film of claim 16 having a transmitted haze of less than about 5 percent.
However the haze is “a result-effective variable” because it confers visual effects. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a transmitted haze of less than about 5 percent, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have a transmitted haze of less than about 5 percent for the purposes of having improving the visual effects.
Regarding claim 23, Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach The optical film of claim 16, wherein the bonding layer has a glass transition temperature less than about −100° C. and a melting point greater than about 80° C.
However the temperatures are “result-effective variables” because they confer temperature working range. And it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the bonding layer has a glass transition temperature less than about −100° C. and a melting point greater than about 80° C, 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 of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP2144.05.
One would be motivated to have the bonding layer has a glass transition temperature less than about −100° C. and a melting point greater than about 80° C for the purposes of having desired working range.
Regarding claim 24, Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 16, but does not explicitly teach An optical lens comprising a lens substrate and the optical film of claim 16 disposed on, and substantially conforming to, a major surface of the lens substrate, the olefin layer facing the lens substrate.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the optical film substantially conforming to, a major surface of the lens substrate would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of selecting specific polarization light for lens applications.
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Yoshimi in view of Neavin by having the optical film substantially conforming to, a major surface of the lens substrate for the purposes of selecting specific polarization light for lens applications. Further absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having the olefin layer facing the lens substrate would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of design choices.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the teaching of Yoshimi in view of Neavin by having the olefin layer facing the lens substrate for the purposes of design choices.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimi (US 20100202051, of record) in view of Neavin (6783349, of record), and further in view of Johnson (US 20180172888, of record).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Yoshimi in view of Neavin teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 19, but does not teach The optical film of claim 19, wherein the plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers is coextruded and co-stretched with the olefin, bonding and absorbing polarizer layers.
However, in an analogous optics field of endeavor, Johnson teaches skin layers being coextruded and co-stretched with the rest of polarizers (Abstract, [12], “...coextruded and costretched with the rest of reflecting-absorbing polarizer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the plurality of alternating first and second polymeric layers (as the skin layers) is coextruded and co-stretched with the olefin, bonding and absorbing polarizer layers (as the rest of the polarizer) as taught by Johnson in the teaching of modified Yoshimi in view of Neavin for the purposes of improving production.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights