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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-2 and 12-16) in the reply filed on August 25, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out any supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claim 3-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kosaka et al. (US 2022/0089867).
Kosaka discloses a forming method of an optical film, comprising: a heating step of heating an optical film (paragraph [0162]); a forming step of pressing the optical film against a mold to deform the optical film along a shape of the mold (paragraph [0162]); and a cutting step of cutting the optical film (paragraph [0183]), wherein the heating step is a step of heating the optical film by irradiating the optical film with infrared rays (paragraph [0163], infrared drying furnace), and an irradiation amount of the infrared rays has a distribution in a plane of the optical film (distribution of infrared rays in a plane of the optical film would depend on the configuration of the infrared drying furnace).
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 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2021/111861A1, with Shibata et al. (US 2022/0283351) serving as an English translation of WO2021/111861A1.
As to claim 12, Shibata discloses in figure 4, an optical film 600 having a non-developable surface in which a Gaussian curvature is positive, wherein the optical film is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer (paragraph [0424]). Shibata does not disclose wherein in a case where a wavelength obtained by subtracting 20 nm from a half-value wavelength on a side shorter than a selective reflection center wavelength in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is defined as an evaluation wavelength of an in-plane retardation, an in-plane retardation A at the evaluation wavelength in a center of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is less than 2% of the evaluation wavelength, and an in-plane retardation B at the evaluation wavelength in an outer edge portion of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is less than 2% of the evaluation wavelength. However, it was well known to minimize the in-plane retardation of a reflective polarizer (paragraph [0424], optical film 600 is a reflective polarizer) in order to prevent light loss from light becoming elliptically polarized. 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 Shibata wherein in a case where a wavelength obtained by subtracting 20 nm from a half-value wavelength on a side shorter than a selective reflection center wavelength in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is defined as an evaluation wavelength of an in-plane retardation, an in-plane retardation A at the evaluation wavelength in a center of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is less than 2% of the evaluation wavelength, and an in-plane retardation B at the evaluation wavelength in an outer edge portion of the cholesteric liquid crystal layer is less than 2% of the evaluation wavelength, in order to prevent light loss from light becoming elliptically polarized.
As to claim 13, Shibata discloses in figure 4, an optical film 100 having a non-developable surface in which a Gaussian curvature is positive, wherein the optical film has no selective reflective characteristic (paragraph [0424], optical film 100 is a linear polarizer which has no selective reflection characteristic). Shibata does not disclose wherein an in-plane retardation A in a center of the optical film at a wavelength of 550 nm is less than 11 nm, and an in-plane retardation B in an outer edge portion of the optical film at a wavelength of 550 nm is less than 11 nm. However, it was well known to minimize the in-plane retardation of a linear polarizer in order to prevent light loss from light becoming elliptically polarized. 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 Shibata wherein an in-plane retardation A in a center of the optical film at a wavelength of 550 nm is less than 11 nm, and an in-plane retardation B in an outer edge portion of the optical film at a wavelength of 550 nm is less than 11 nm, in order to prevent light loss from light becoming elliptically polarized.
As to claims 14-15, Shibata discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claims 12-13, but does not disclose wherein an outer peripheral shape is an ellipse. However, the outer peripheral shape of the optical film was dependent on the shape required by the system it was utilized in. 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 Shibata wherein an outer peripheral shape is an ellipse, in order to utilize the optical film in a system which requires an elliptical outer peripheral shape.
As to claim 16, Shibata discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 12, but does not disclose wherein the cholesteric liquid crystal layer have in-plane different helical pitches. However, it was known to incorporate different helical pitches in order to reflect more than one wavelength of light. 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 Shibata by incorporating different helical pitches in the cholesteric liquid crystal layer in order to allow the reflective polarizer to reflect more than one wavelength of light.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art taught or fairly suggested a forming method comprising the combination required by claim 2, wherein the mold is a concave surface of a non-developable surface in which a Gaussian curvature is positive, and in a case where an in-plane position of the optical film is projected onto the mold from a normal direction of a main surface of the optical film, an amount of infrared irradiation to the optical film at a vertex of the concave surface is larger than an amount of infrared irradiation to the optical film at an end part of the concave surface.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Chung whose telephone number is (571)272-2288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/DAVID Y CHUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights