DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
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, 8, and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0082885 A1) in view of Tamagawa (WO 2014178178, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a transmittance variable optical laminate 300 (denoted “variable transmissivity device”, see e.g. paragraph [0050]) comprising a light control laminate comprising (see e.g. Figure 4):
a first polarizing plate 310 (denoted “first polarizing substrate”, see e.g. paragraph [0051]);
a first transparent conductive layer 351 (denoted “first transparent electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0055]) formed on one surface of the first polarizing plate 310 (see e.g. Figure 4);
a second polarizing plate 320 (denoted “second polarizing substrate”, see e.g. paragraph [0051]) opposite to the first polarizing plate 310 (see e.g. Figure 4);
a second transparent conductive layer 352 (denoted “second transparent electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0055]) formed on one surface of the second polarizing plate 320 and opposite to the first transparent conductive layer 351 (see e.g. Figure 4); and
a liquid crystal layer 330 (see e.g. paragraph [0053]) provided between the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 (see e.g. Figure 4),
at least one of the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 is formed in direct contact with any one of the first polarizing plate 310 and the second polarizing plate 320 (see e.g. Figure 4).
Lee et al. fails to disclose
wherein at least one of a surface protection film and a hard coating layer is provided on one or both surfaces of the light control laminate, and
wherein the surface protection film has a peeling force of 1.0 N/25 mm to 2.4 N/25 mm, and the hard coating layer has a surface pencil hardness of HB to 6H.
However, Tamagawa discloses (see e.g. Figure 2 and page 4 regarding the use of a hard coating layer and note that either a surface protection film and its claimed attributes or a hard coating layer and its claimed attributes satisfy the claim):
wherein at least one of a surface protection film and a hard coating layer 17 (denoted “hard coat layer”, see e.g. page 4, second paragraph of English translation) is provided on one or both surfaces of the light control laminate (i.e. at least including layers 30, 41, 45, 51, 53 in Figure 2), and
wherein the surface protection film has a peeling force of 1.0 N/25 mm to 2.4 N/25 mm, and the hard coating layer 17 has a surface pencil hardness of 4H or more (see e.g. page 13, seventh paragraph under of English translation), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Tamagawa, 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein at least one of a surface protection film and a hard coating layer is provided on one or both surfaces of the light control laminate, and wherein the surface protection film has a peeling force of 1.0 N/25 mm to 2.4 N/25 mm, and the hard coating layer has a surface pencil hardness of HB to 6H.
A hard coat layer on the optical laminate provides environmental stability, resistance to chemicals, and a more durable device.
In regard to claim 8, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the hard coating layer is provided on both surfaces of the light control laminate.
However, Tamagawa discloses
wherein the hard coating layer 17 is provided on both surfaces of the light control laminate (see e.g. Figure 2).
Given the teachings of Tamagawa, 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the hard coating layer is provided on both surfaces of the light control laminate.
A hard coat layer on the optical laminate provides environmental stability, resistance to chemicals, and a more durable device.
In regard to claim 10, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the hard coating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylate-based compound and an epoxy-based compound.
However, Tamagawa discloses
wherein the hard coating layer 17 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylate-based compound and an epoxy-based compound (see e.g. page 13, third and fourth paragraphs of English translation).
Given the teachings of Tamagawa, 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the hard coating layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of an acrylate-based compound and an epoxy-based compound.
A hard coat layer on the optical laminate provides environmental stability, resistance to chemicals, and a more durable device.
In regard to claim 11, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the hard coating layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 50 µm.
However, Tamagawa discloses
wherein the hard coating layer has a thickness of 2 µm to 15 µm (see e.g. page 13, sixth paragraph of English translation), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Tamagawa, 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the hard coating layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 50 µm.
Providing a thickness in that range would impart sufficient durability and impact resistance to the film (see e.g. page 13, sixth paragraph of English translation).
In regard to claim 12, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein least one of the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a metal, a carbonaceous material, a conductive polymer, a conductive ink, and nanowires (see e.g. paragraph [0055] for indium tin oxide (ITO)).
In regard to claim 13, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate comprises at least one functional layer selected from the group consisting of a protective layer, a retardation matching layer, and a refractive index-matching layer.
However, Tamagawa discloses
wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate comprises at least one functional layer selected from the group consisting of a protective layer, a retardation matching layer, and a refractive index-matching layer (see e.g. page 19, fifth paragraph for protective layer).
Given the teachings of Tamagawa, 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate comprises at least one functional layer selected from the group consisting of a protective layer, a retardation matching layer, and a refractive index-matching layer.
Doing so would provide additional protection to the device.
In regard to claim 14, Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, with wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm.
Providing an optimized thickness of the polarization film would allow for a film that has a high degree of polarization and a high transmission of light and would have had predictable results.
In regard to claim 15, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the liquid crystal layer 330 comprises at least one spacer 332 selected from the group consisting of a ball spacer and a column spacer (see e.g. paragraph [0053]).
In regard to claim 16, Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the spacer has a height of 1 µm to 10 µm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the spacer has a height of 1 µm to 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, with wherein the spacer has a height of 1 µm to 10 µm.
Providing a height of the liquid crystal in the micron range would allow for a faster electrical response time.
In regard to claim 17, Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein an occupied area of the spacer in the liquid crystal layer is 0.01% to 10% of an area of the liquid crystal layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein an occupied area of the spacer in the liquid crystal layer is 0.01% to 10% of an area of the liquid crystal layer, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, with wherein an occupied area of the spacer in the liquid crystal layer is 0.01% to 10% of an area of the liquid crystal layer.
Providing an optimized density of spacers allows the liquid crystal gap to maintained uniformly while not degrading the transmission/contrast of the device and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 18, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an alignment film 341, 342 on both surfaces of the liquid crystal layer 330 (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figure 4).
In regard to claim 19, Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, discloses the transmittance variable optical laminate according to any one of claim 1 (see e.g. rejection of claim 1).
Lee et al. further discloses
a smart window comprising a transmittance variable optical laminate (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
In regard to claim 20, Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, discloses the smart window of claim 19 (see e.g. rejection of claim 19).
Lee et al. further discloses a means of transportation comprising the smart window (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0082885 A1) in view of Tokuoka et al. (JP 2020086237, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 1, Lee et al. discloses a transmittance variable optical laminate 300 (denoted “variable transmissivity device”, see e.g. paragraph [0050]) comprising a light control laminate comprising (see e.g. Figure 4):
a first polarizing plate 310 (denoted “first polarizing substrate”, see e.g. paragraph [0051]);
a first transparent conductive layer 351 (denoted “first transparent electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0055]) formed on one surface of the first polarizing plate 310 (see e.g. Figure 4);
a second polarizing plate 320 (denoted “second polarizing substrate”, see e.g. paragraph [0051]) opposite to the first polarizing plate 310 (see e.g. Figure 4);
a second transparent conductive layer 352 (denoted “second transparent electrode”, see e.g. paragraph [0055]) formed on one surface of the second polarizing plate 320 and opposite to the first transparent conductive layer 351 (see e.g. Figure 4); and
a liquid crystal layer 330 (see e.g. paragraph [0053]) provided between the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 (see e.g. Figure 4),
at least one of the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 is formed in direct contact with any one of the first polarizing plate 310 and the second polarizing plate 320 (see e.g. Figure 4).
Lee et al. fails to disclose
wherein at least one of a surface protection film and a hard coating layer is provided on one or both surfaces of the light control laminate, and
wherein the surface protection film has a peeling force of 1.0 N/25 mm to 2.4 N/25 mm, and the hard coating layer has a surface pencil hardness of HB to 6H.
However, Tokuoka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein at least one of a surface protection film 50 (see e.g. page 2, second full paragraph of English translation) and a hard coating layer is provided on one or both surfaces of a polarization plate, and
wherein the surface protection film has a peeling force of 1.75 N- 2N (see e.g. page 2, third full paragraph of English translation), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Tokuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein at least one of a surface protection film and a hard coating layer is provided on one or both surfaces of the light control laminate, and wherein the surface protection film has a peeling force of 1.0 N/25 mm to 2.4 N/25 mm, and the hard coating layer has a surface pencil hardness of HB to 6H. Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
In regard to claim 2, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the surface protection film comprises a base film and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer formed on the base film, and is laminated on the light control laminate via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
However, Takuoka et al. discloses (see e.g. Figure 1):
wherein the surface protection film 50 comprises a base film 51 (see e.g. page 5, first paragraph of English translation) and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer 52 (see e.g. page 5, third paragraph of English translation) formed on the base film 51. Further one of ordinary skill in the is laminated on the polarizer via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer 52.
Given the teachings of Takuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the surface protection film comprises a base film and a pressure sensitive adhesive layer formed on the base film, and is laminated on the light control laminate via the pressure sensitive adhesive layer.
Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
In regard to claim 4, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the base film has a thickness of 10 µm to 300 µm.
However, Takuoka et al. discloses
wherein the base film has a thickness of 16 µm to 250 µm (see e.g. page 5, second paragraph), which falls within applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Takuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the base film has a thickness of 10 µm to 300 µm.
Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
In regard to claim 5, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 30 µm.
However, Takuoka et al. discloses
wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a thickness of 4 µm to 120 µm (see e.g. page 5, fourth paragraph of English translation), which overlaps applicant’s claimed range. It is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
Given the teachings of Takuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the pressure sensitive adhesive layer has a thickness of 1 µm to 30 µm.
Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
In regard to claim 6, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein, when the surface protection film is peeled off from the light control laminate, the liquid crystal layer does not burst or no bubbles occur.
However, Takuoka et al. discloses
wherein, when the surface protection film is peeled off from the light control laminate, the liquid crystal layer does not burst or no bubbles occur (Note that this limitation is conditional and is satisfied for at least a case where the surface protection is not peeled from the laminate).
Given the teachings of Takuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al., with wherein, when the surface protection film is peeled off from the light control laminate, the liquid crystal layer does not burst or no bubbles occur.
Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
In regard to claim 7, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the surface protection film is provided on both surfaces of the light control laminate.
However, Takuoka et al. discloses
wherein the surface protection film 50 is provided on both surfaces of the polarizer (see e.g. Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Takuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the surface protection film is provided on both surfaces of the light control laminate.
Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
In regard to claim 12, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein least one of the first transparent conductive layer 351 and the second transparent conductive layer 352 comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a transparent conductive oxide, a metal, a carbonaceous material, a conductive polymer, a conductive ink, and nanowires (see e.g. paragraph [0055] for indium tin oxide (ITO)).
In regard to claim 14, Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., with wherein at least one of the first polarizing plate and the second polarizing plate has a thickness of 30 µm to 200 µm.
Providing an optimized thickness of the polarization film would allow for a film that has a high degree of polarization and a high transmission of light and would have had predictable results.
In regard to claim 15, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
wherein the liquid crystal layer 330 comprises at least one spacer 332 selected from the group consisting of a ball spacer and a column spacer (see e.g. paragraph [0053]).
In regard to claim 16, Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the spacer has a height of 1 µm to 10 µm.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein the spacer has a height of 1 µm to 10 µm, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., with wherein the spacer has a height of 1 µm to 10 µm.
Providing a height of the liquid crystal in the micron range would allow for a faster electrical response time.
In regard to claim 17, Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 15 above, but fails to disclose
wherein an occupied area of the spacer in the liquid crystal layer is 0.01% to 10% of an area of the liquid crystal layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize using wherein an occupied area of the spacer in the liquid crystal layer is 0.01% to 10% of an area of the liquid crystal layer, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see e.g. MPEP 2144.05).
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 device of Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., with wherein an occupied area of the spacer in the liquid crystal layer is 0.01% to 10% of an area of the liquid crystal layer.
Providing an optimized density of spacers allows the liquid crystal gap to maintained uniformly while not degrading the transmission/contrast of the device and would have predictable results.
In regard to claim 18, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and
an alignment film 341, 342 on both surfaces of the liquid crystal layer 330 (see e.g. paragraph [0054] and Figure 4).
In regard to claim 19, Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., discloses the transmittance variable optical laminate according to any one of claim 1 (see e.g. rejection of claim 1).
Lee et al. further discloses
a smart window comprising a transmittance variable optical laminate (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
In regard to claim 20, Lee et al., in view of Takuoka et al., discloses the smart window of claim 19 (see e.g. rejection of claim 19).
Lee et al. further discloses a means of transportation comprising the smart window (see e.g. paragraph [0040]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0082885 A1) in view of Tokuoka et al. (JP 2020086237) and further in view of Sasaki et al. (JP 2017149923, of which an English translation is attached).
In regard to claim 3, Lee et al., in view of Tokuoka et al., discloses the limitations as applied to claim 2 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the base film comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin-based film, a polyester-based film, an acrylic film, a styrene-based film, an amide-based film, a polyvinyl chloride-based film, a polyvinylidene chloride-based film, and a polycarbonate-based film.
However, Sasaki et al. discloses
wherein the base film comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin-based film, a polyester-based film, an acrylic film, a styrene-based film, an amide-based film, a polyvinyl chloride-based film, a polyvinylidene chloride-based film, and a polycarbonate-based film (see e.g. page 5, second full paragraph of English translation).
Given the teachings of Sasaki et al., 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 device of Lee et al., in view of Tokuoka et al., with wherein the base film comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyolefin-based film, a polyester-based film, an acrylic film, a styrene-based film, an amide-based film, a polyvinyl chloride-based film, a polyvinylidene chloride-based film, and a polycarbonate-based film.
Using a plastic material for the base of the surface protection film would provide a light weight and sturdy material for use in the device.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2022/0082885 A1) in view of Tamagawa (WO 2014178178) and further in view of Tokuoka et al. (JP 2020086237).
In regard to claim 9, Lee et al. discloses the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but fails to disclose
wherein the hard coating layer is provided on one surface of the light control laminate, and
the surface protection film is provided on the other side opposite to the one surface of the light control laminate.
However, Tamagawa discloses
wherein the hard coating layer 17 is provided on one surface of the light control laminate (see e.g. Figure 2).
Given the teachings of Tamagawa, 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 device of Lee et al. with wherein the hard coating layer is provided on one surface of the light control laminate.
A hard coat layer on the optical laminate provides environmental stability, resistance to chemicals, and a more durable device.
Lee et al., in view of Tamagawa, fails to disclose
the surface protection film is provided on the other side opposite to the one surface of the light control laminate.
However, Tokuoka et al. discloses
the surface protection film 50 is provided on a polarization film (see e.g. Figure 1).
Given the teachings of Tokuoka et al., 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 device of Lee et al. with the surface protection film is provided on the other side opposite to the one surface of the light control laminate.
Providing a surface protection film would provide a polarization plate from breaking when peeled, removed and reused (see e.g. page 1, last paragraph, continued to page 2 of Takuoka et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA M MERLIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3207. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/JESSICA M MERLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights