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 § 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 1-3 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0121007) in view of Verrall et al. (US 6,291,035) and Kim et al. (US 2006/0274248).
As to claim 1, Chen discloses in figures 1A and 1B: a first polarizer P1; a first retardation layer O1 containing first anisotropic molecules LC; a second retardation layer O2 containing second anisotropic molecules LC; and a second polarizer P2, wherein: when a tilt angle of a portion of the first anisotropic molecules of the first retardation layer located near the first polarizer is denoted by θ1-1, a tilt angle of another portion of the first anisotropic molecules of the first retardation layer located near an interface with the second retardation layer is denoted by θ1-2, a tilt angle of a portion of the second anisotropic molecules of the second retardation layer located near the second polarizer is denoted by θ2-1, and a tilt angle of another portion of the second anisotropic molecules of the second retardation layer located near an interface with the first retardation layer is denoted by θ2-2, the θ1-1 is greater than the θ1-2, with tilt angles of the first anisotropic molecules continuously changing in a thickness direction of the first retardation layer, the θ2-1 is greater than the θ2-2, with tilt angles of the second anisotropic molecules continuously changing in a thickness direction of the second retardation layer, a transmission axis T1 (X1) of the first polarizer P1 is parallel to a transmission axis T2 (X1) of the second polarizer P2, a slow axis OP1 (X1) of the first retardation layer O1 is parallel to a slow axis OP2 (X1) of the second retardation layer O2, and the transmission axis T1 (X1) of the first polarizer P1 is parallel to the slow axis OP1 (X1) of the first retardation layer O1 and the slow axis OP2 (X1) of the second retardation layer O2.
Chen does not disclose wherein each of the θ1-1 and the θ2-1 is 70° or greater and 80° or smaller, and each of the θ1-2 and the θ2-2 is 1° or greater and 5° or smaller. Verrall discloses in figure 1a, a first retardation layer 11a (equivalent to retardation layer O1 of Chen) and a second retardation layer 11b (equivalent to retardation layer O2 of Chen) with a similar structure to those of Chen. Verrall discloses in column 5, lines 17-25, that the minimum tilt angle θmin (equivalent to θ1-2 and θ2-2) is most preferably 0 to 5 degrees, and the maximum tilt angle θmax (equivalent to θ1-1 and θ2-1) is most preferably 35 to 90 degrees. Verrall discloses in column 22, lines 10-15, that the optical retardation film shows superior behavior, making it suitable for use in a liquid crystal display device. 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 Chen wherein each of the θ1-1 and the θ2-1 is 35 to 90 degrees, and each of the θ1-2 and the θ2-2 is 0 to 5 degrees as disclosed by Verrall, in order to obtain an optical retardation film with superior behavior that is suitable for use in a liquid crystal display device. The claimed range of 1° or greater and 5° or smaller lies inside the prior art range of 0 to 5 degrees, and the claimed range of 70° or greater and 80° or smaller lies inside the prior art range of 35 to 90 degrees. According to MPEP 2144.05, Section I: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Chen does not disclose wherein x and y values of an xy chromaticity diagram in an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) 1931 color space satisfy relationships of x < 0.33 and y < 0.33. Kim discloses in paragraph [0064], when x and y values of an xy chromaticity diagram in an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) 1931 color space are both between 0.2 to 0.3, color shift does not occur or is minimized. Therefore, 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 Chen wherein x and y values of an xy chromaticity diagram in an International Commission on Illumination (CIE) 1931 color space are both between 0.2 to 0.3 as disclosed by Kim in order to eliminate or minimize color shift.
As to claim 2, Chen discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Chen further discloses in figure 1A, wherein the transmission axis T1 (X1) of the first polarizer P1 is parallel to the slow axis OP1 (X1) of the first retardation layer OP1 and the slow axis OP2 (X1) of the second retardation layer OP2.
As to claim 3, Chen discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Chen further discloses in figure 1A, an alternative embodiment wherein the transmission axis T1 (X2) of the first polarizer P1 is orthogonal to the slow axis OP1 (X2) of the first retardation layer O1 and the slow axis OP2 (X2) of the second retardation layer O2.
As to claim 7, Chen discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Chen further discloses in figure 1B, wherein θ1-1 and θ2-1 appear identical. Therefore, a difference between θ1-1 and θ2-1 appears to be 3° or less.
As to claim 8, Chen discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Chen further discloses in figure 1B, wherein the tilt angles of the first anisotropic molecules and the second anisotropic molecules change, respectively, in the thickness direction of the first retardation layer and in the thickness direction of the second retardation layer, with an interface between the first retardation layer and the second retardation layer as a plane of symmetry.
As to claim 9, Chen discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Chen further discloses in paragraph [0037], wherein the first polarizer P1 may be an absorptive polarizer, and the second polarizer may be a reflective polarizer.
As to claim 10, Chen discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 1. Chen further discloses in figure 6: a liquid crystal panel DP (paragraph [0045]); the optical element P1/O1/O2/P2; and a backlight BL, the optical element being disposed with the first polarizer P1 being adjacent to the liquid crystal panel DP.
Claim 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0121007) in view of Verrall et al. (US 6,291,035) and Kim et al. (US 2006/0274248) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Hoshi et al. (US 2009/0059120).
As to claim 11, Chen in view of Verrall and Kim discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the backlight includes a prism sheet disposed in an optical element side of the backlight, the prism sheet includes lines of linear bumps parallel to each other on an observation surface side surface thereof, and a transmission axis of the first polarizer and a transmission axis of the second polarizer are parallel to or orthogonal to ridge lines of the linear bumps. Hoshi discloses in figure 1, wherein the backlight 3 includes a prism sheet 11 disposed in an optical element side of the backlight, the prism sheet includes lines of linear bumps parallel to each other on an observation surface side, and a transmission axis 6a of the light incident polarization plate 6 is parallel to (figure 3b) or orthogonal to (figure 3A) the ridge lines of the linear bumps. Hoshi further discloses in paragraph [0015], that the disclosed prism structure improves front luminance, reducing power consumption and improving display image quality. 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 Chen wherein the backlight includes a prism sheet disposed in an optical element side of the backlight, the prism sheet includes lines of linear bumps parallel to each other on an observation surface side surface thereof, and a transmission axis of the first polarizer and a transmission axis of the second polarizer are parallel to or orthogonal to ridge lines of the linear bumps, as disclosed by Hoshi, in order to improve front luminance and thereby reduce power consumption and improve display image quality.
As to claim 12, Chen in view of Verrall and Kim discloses all of the elements of the claimed invention discussed above regarding claim 10, but does not disclose wherein the backlight includes a prism sheet disposed in an optical element side of the backlight, the prism sheet includes lines of linear bumps parallel to each other on an observation surface side surface thereof, and the slow axis of the first retardation layer and the slow axis of the second retardation layer are parallel to ridge lines of the linear bumps. Hoshi discloses in figure 1, wherein the backlight 3 includes a prism sheet 11 disposed in an optical element side of the backlight, the prism sheet includes lines of linear bumps parallel to each other on an observation surface side, and a transmission axis 6a of the light incident polarization plate 6 is parallel to (figure 3b) the ridge lines of the linear bumps. Hoshi further discloses in paragraph [0015], that the disclosed prism structure improves front luminance, reducing power consumption and improving display image quality. 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 Chen wherein the backlight includes a prism sheet disposed in an optical element side of the backlight, the prism sheet includes lines of linear bumps parallel to each other on an observation surface side surface thereof, and a transmission axis of the first polarizer and a transmission axis of the second polarizer are parallel to ridge lines of the linear bumps, as disclosed by Hoshi, in order to improve front luminance and thereby reduce power consumption and improve display image quality. Because Chen discloses in figure 1 that the slow axis OP1 (X1) of the first retardation layer O1 and the slow axis OP2 (X1) of the second retardation layer O2 are parallel to the transmission axis T1 (X1) of the first polarizer P1 and the transmission axis T2 (X1) of the second polarizer P2, the slow axis OP1 (X1) of the first retardation layer O1 and the slow axis OP2 (X1) of the second retardation layer O2 would also be parallel to the ridge lines of the linear bumps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3 and 7-12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection. The new ground of rejection is based in part on the newly cited prior art of Verrall et al. (US 6,291,035) and Kim et al. (US 2006/0274248).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2871