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 .
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(s) 1-2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tendler (U.S. 2007/0052918).
Regarding claim 1, Tendler discloses an optical article (70, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039]) comprising a cross-polarization cancelling optical polarized film (polarized film of 70, Figs. 5 and 7; page 2, para [0034]), wherein the film comprises:
at least a first section (76 of 72 and 74, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039]) comprising a first edge (upper edge of 76, Fig. 7), a first stretch ratio (since 76 has a particular polarization and thus stretch ratio, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]), and a first polarization efficiency (since 76 is a polarization region which has a particular first polarization efficiency, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]);
a second section (78, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039]) comprising a second edge (bottom edge of 78, Fig. 7), a second stretch ratio (since 78 has a gradient polarization less than 76 and thus has a particular stretch ratio, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]), and a second polarization efficiency (since 78 has a gradient polarization and thus a particular second polarization efficiency, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]); and
a continuously decreasing polar gradient from the first edge (upper edge of 76, Fig. 7) of the film to the second edge (bottom edge of 78, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]) of the film, and
wherein the film is continuously and asymmetrically stretched (since there is a continuous gradient polarization from 76 to 78 that is from asymmetric stretching to provide the different polarizations, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Tendler discloses an optical article with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein the first polarization efficiency (76 is a polarization region which has a particular first polarization efficiency, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]) and the second polarization efficiency (78 has a gradient polarization and thus a particular second polarization efficiency, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]) comprise a total polarization efficiency, and wherein the total polarization efficiency continuously decreases from the first edge (upper edge of 76, Fig. 7) of the film to the second edge of the film (bottom edge of 78, Fig. 7; since there is a continuously decreasing gradient polarization from 76 to 78, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]).
Regarding claim 6, Tendler discloses an optical article with all the limitations above and further discloses wherein at least a portion of the second section (such as portion of 78 having no polarization, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039]) has a stretch ratio of less than 3.5, such as 0 (since the portion of 78 having no polarization has a stretch ratio of 0, Fig. 7).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tendler (U.S. 2007/0052918).
Regarding claim 3, Tendler discloses an optical article with all the limitations above but does not expressly disclose wherein the transmission of the film (film of optical article 70, Fig. 7) is between 8% and 85%. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to configure the transmission efficiency of the film through routine experimentation and optimization since the transmission efficiency is a result-effective variable for a polarized film. Applicant has not disclosed that the transmission of the film between 8% and 85% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, optimizing the transmission efficiency of the polarized film of Tendler is a result-effective variable, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the transmission of the film (film of optical article 70, Fig. 7) to be in the range of 8% and 85%, such as 10%, through routine experimentation and optimization with a reasonable expectation for successes.
Regarding claim 4, Tendler discloses an optical article with all the limitations above but does not expressly disclose wherein the transmission of the film (film of optical article 70, Fig. 7) is between 8% and 18%. However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention would have been led to configure the transmission efficiency of the film through routine experimentation and optimization since the transmission efficiency is a result-effective variable for a polarized film. Applicant has not disclosed that the transmission of the film between 8% and 18% is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. In the instant case, optimizing the transmission efficiency of the polarized film of Tendler is a result-effective variable, and therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure the transmission of the film (film of optical article 70, Fig. 7) to be in the range of 8% and 18%, such as 10%, through routine experimentation and optimization with a reasonable expectation for successes.
Regarding claim 7, Tendler discloses an optical article with all the limitations above but does not expressly disclose wherein the film (polarized film of 70, Fig. 7) has a color gradient, wherein the color gradient varies continuously from the first edge of the first section (upper edge of 76, Fig. 7) of the film to the second edge of the second section (bottom edge of 78, Fig. 7). However, since Tendler discloses a continuously decreasing polar gradient from the first edge (upper edge of 76, Fig. 7) of the film to the second edge (bottom edge of 78, Fig. 7; page 3, para [0039-0040]) of the film, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention to configure a corresponding color gradient that varies continuously from the first edge of the first section (upper edge of 76, Fig. 7) of the film to the second edge of the second section (bottom edge of 78, Fig. 7) in order to obtain the benefits of providing a color gradient that matches the polarization gradient of the film.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tendler (U.S. 2007/0052918) in view of Shih et al. (U.S. 2018/0298153).
Regarding claim 5, Tendler discloses an optical article with all the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly disclose wherein at least a portion of the first section (76, Fig. 7) of the film has a stretch ratio of between 1 and 4 and a polarization efficiency of between 90% and 100%. However, Shih discloses an optical polarization film (page 1, para [0009]) that can have a stretch ratio of 2 (page 8, para [0129-0130]) and a polarization efficiency of at least 99.95% (page 9, para [0178]) in order to produce an ultra-thin polarizer film with enhanced polarization efficiency (page 2, para [0024]).
Therefore, before the time of the effective filing of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure at least a portion of the first section (Tendler: 76, Fig. 7) of the film (Tendler: polarized film of 70, Fig. 7) of the optical article (Tendler: 70, Fig. 7) of Tendler to have a stretch ration between 1 and 4, such as 2 (Shih: page 8, para [0129-0130]) and a polarization efficiency between 90% and 100%, such as 99.95% (Shih: page 9, para [0178]) in order to obtain the benefits of producing an ultra-thin polarizer film with enhanced polarization efficiency as taught by Shih (page 2, para [0024]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL CHANG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7923. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAUL C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights