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 .
Drawings
The drawings with 13 Sheets of Figs. 1-22 received on 10/24/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-24, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-21, of U.S. Patent No. 12,487,560 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
Current #18/925,900
Parent US Patent No. 12,487,560 (#17/372,639)
Claim 1:
A light guide plate configured for image display, the light guide plate comprising:
a first resin base; and a hologram layer,
Claim 4: a second resin base;
wherein the first resin base has an MC value of 0.120 or less, the MC value being obtained by evaluation using shadow contrast by Expression (1):
MC = Lmax-Lmin/Lmax+Lmin
wherein Lmax is a maximum value of brightness from a brightness distribution, Lmin is a minimum value of the brightness from the brightness distribution, and MC is an MC value that objectively represents a magnitude of a dip in low brightness portions in the brightness distribution,
and wherein the first resin base is manufactured by performing cutting and polishing processing.
A light guide plate configured for image display, comprising:
a first resin base; a hologram layer formed on one side of the first resin base in a thickness direction; an incidence portion formed on another side of the first resin base in a thickness direction, an image light being incident on the incidence portion; a display image emission portion formed on the another side of the first resin base at a position separated from the incidence portion in the plane direction which is a direction orthogonal to the thickness direction, a second resin base; and an external light incidence portion is provided on a side of the second resin base opposite to the hologram layer in the thickness direction, wherein an arithmetic average roughness Ra of the surface of the first resin base is 2.6 nm or more but 5 nm or less, wherein the hologram layer comprises a waveguide diffraction grating portion and a display diffraction grating portion, wherein the display image emission portion comprises the display diffraction grating portion and a region of the first resin base facing the display diffraction grating portion in the thickness direction, wherein the image light incident on the incidence portion is guided to the display diffraction grating portion through the waveguide diffraction grating portion and emitted to the outside of the light guide plate through the first resin base in the display image emission portion, wherein at least a portion of an external light incident on the external light incidence portion is emitted to the outside of the light guide plate through the display image emission portion, and wherein a first image on which a second image based on the image light and a third image based on the external light are superimposed is displayed, wherein the first resin base
wherein Lmax is a maximum value of brightness from a brightness distribution, Lmin is a minimum value of the brightness from the brightness distribution, and MC is an evaluated MC value that objectively represents a magnitude of a dip in low brightness portions in the brightness distribution wherein a measurement area of the evaluated MC value is provided at each of 41 points, which are shifted by 2 mm in a lateral direction in a rectangular region having a width of 180 mm in a vertical direction and a width of 80 mm in a horizontal direction, wherein a measurement line is selected to divide the measurement area laterally into 40 equal parts in each measurement area, and wherein each of the evaluated MC value is measured from the measurement line.
Claim 2:
further comprising: a first barrier layer.
Claim 2:
further comprising: a first barrier layer.
Claim 3:
wherein the first resin base, the first barrier layer, and the hologram layer are arranged in that order in a thickness direction.
Claim 3:
wherein the first resin base, the first barrier layer, and the hologram layer are arranged in that order in a thickness direction.
Claim 4:
further comprising: a second barrier layer, wherein the first resin base, the first barrier layer, the hologram layer, the second barrier layer, and the second resin base are arranged in that order in the thickness direction.
Claim 4:
further comprising: a second barrier layer, wherein the first resin base, the first barrier layer, the hologram layer, the second barrier layer, and the second resin base are arranged in that order in the thickness direction.
Claim 5:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base.
Claim 5:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base.
Claim 6:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is 1.48 or more.
Claim 6:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is 1.48 or more.
Claim 7:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises an inorganic material
Claim 7:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises an inorganic material
Claim 8:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises a silicon oxide, silicon nitrogen oxide, diamond-like carbon, aluminum oxide, and/or glass.
Claim 13:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises a silicon oxide, silicon nitrogen oxide, diamond-like carbon, aluminum oxide, and/or glass.
Claim 9:
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on a resin film.
Claim 8:
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on a resin film.
Claim 10:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises a steam barrier material.
Claim 9:
wherein a steam barrier material is used as a material of the first barrier layer.
Claim 11:
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on the hologram layer.
Claim 15:
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on the hologram layer.
Claim 12:
wherein a refractive index of the first resin base is in a range of from 1.48 to 1.70.
Claim 16:
wherein a refractive index of the first resin base is in a range of from 1.48 to 1.70.
Claim 13:
wherein the first resin base contains at least one resin selected from the group consisting of a poly(meth)acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, a cyclic polyolefin, and a polycarbonate.
Claim 17:
wherein the first resin base comprises poly(meth)acrylic resin.
Claim 14:
wherein a heat shrinkage rate, measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015, of the first resin base is less than 3%.
Claim 18:
wherein a heat shrinkage rate, measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015, of the first resin base is less than 3%.
Claim 15:
wherein an arithmetic average roughness Ra of a surface of the first resin base is 10 nm or less.
Claim 19:
wherein an arithmetic average roughness Ra of a surface of the first resin base is 10 nm or less.
Claim 16:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base.
Claim 10:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base.
Claim 17:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is 1.48 or more.
Claim 11:
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is 1.48 or more.
Claim 18:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises an inorganic material.
Claim 12:
wherein the first barrier layer comprises an inorganic material.
Claim 19:
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on a resin film.
Claim 8:
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on a resin film.
Claim 20:
wherein a steam barrier material is used as a material of the first barrier layer.
Claim 14:
wherein a steam barrier material is used as a material of the first barrier layer.
Claim 21-23:
wherein the MC value is 0.110 or less, 0.070 or less, 0.020 or less
Claim 21:
wherein the MC value of the first resin base is in a range of from 0.020 to 0.070
Claim 24:
An AR glass, comprising: the light guide plate of claim 1.
Claim 20:
An AR glass, comprising: the light guide plate of claim 1.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from
presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,11,12,21-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al (US 2010/0112460 A1) in view of Nagase et al (WO 2017/138637, of record).
Regarding Claim 1, Satou teaches (fig 1) a light guide plate (optical disc 1, p256, lines 5-6, optical element, waveguide, p304, lines 1-3) configured for image display (3d display, p305, lines 1-3) the light guide plate comprising
a first resin base (first substrate 3, p256) and a hologram layer (recording layer 6, p256).
However, Satou does not teach
wherein the first resin base has an MC value of 0.120 or less, the MC value being obtained by evaluation using shadow contrast by Expression ((1):
MC=Lmax-Lmin/(Lmax+Lmin),
wherein Lmax is a maximum value of brightness from a brightness distribution, Lmin is a minimum value of the brightness from the brightness distribution, and MC is an MC value that objectively represents a magnitude of a dip in low brightness portion in the brightness distribution,
wherein the first resin base is manufactured by performing cutting and polishing processing.
Satou and Nagase are related as resin bases.
Nagase teaches (fig 7,8),
wherein the first resin base (resin molding, pg 11, lines 435-437) has an MC value (MC = Lmax-Lmin/Lmax+Lmin, where Lmax and Lmin are maximum and minimum luminance, pg 20, lines 820-830), of 0.120 or less (Michelson contrast value 0.10, pg 21, lines 865-868, Example 1, MC value is within claimed range)
the MC value being obtained by evaluation using shadow contrast (This further limitation of claim 1 is directed to a method step of evaluating MC, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as brightness differential of the display image. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”), by Expression ((1):
MC=Lmax-Lmin/(Lmax+Lmin), ((MC = Lmax-Lmin/Lmax+Lmin, where Lmax and Lmin are maximum and minimum luminance, pg 20, lines 820-830)
wherein Lmax is a maximum value of brightness from a brightness distribution, Lmin is a minimum value of the brightness from the brightness distribution (pg 20, lines 820-830), and MC is an MC value that objectively represents a magnitude of a dip in low brightness portion in the brightness distribution (MC is Michelson contrast and it represents a magnitude of a dip in low brightness portion in the brightness distribution);
wherein the first resin base (resin molding, pg 11, lines 435-437) is manufactured by performing cutting and polishing processing. (These further limitations are directed to method steps of making or post -processing the first resin base, and it could have been made using an alternative method such as mixing resin liquid and a catalyst and using a mold. The method limitations are not germane to patentability pursuant to MPEP §2112.02, since it has been held that “'Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.' In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the resin base Satou to have MC value of 0.120 or less of Nagase for the purpose of using resins with no distortion and a standard contrast measure used by manufacturers in evaluating appearances of resins (pg 20, lines 820-830, pg 21, lines 1-4).
Regarding Claim 2, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of claim 1, further comprising:
a first barrier layer (oxygen barrier layer 5, p256, lines 6-9, Satou).
Regarding Claim 3, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 2,
wherein the first resin base (first substrate 3, p256, lines 6-9, material is a plastic, polycarbonate, p257, lines 1-3, polycarbonate is a resin, Satou), the first barrier layer (oxygen barrier layer 5, p256, lines 6-9) and the hologram layer (recording layer 6, p256, lines 6-9) are arranged in that order in a thickness direction.
Regarding Claim 4, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 3.
further comprising a second resin base (second substrate 8, p256, lines 6-9, material is a plastic, polycarbonate, p257, lines 1-3, polycarbonate is a resin, Satou) and a second barrier layer (oxygen barrier layer 7, p256, lines 6-9),
wherein the first resin base (first substrate 3, p256, lines 6-9, material is a plastic, polycarbonate, p257, lines 1-3, polycarbonate is a resin), the first barrier layer (oxygen barrier layer 5, p256, lines 6-9), the hologram layer (recording layer 6, p256, lines 6-9), the second barrier layer (oxygen barrier layer 7, p256, lines 6-9) and the second resin base (second substrate 8, p256, lines 6-9, material is a plastic, polycarbonate, p257, lines 1-3, polycarbonate is a resin) are arranged in that order in the thickness direction.
Regarding Claim 11, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 2.
wherein the first barrier layer (oxygen barrier layer 5, p256, lines 6-9, Satou) is disposed on the hologram layer (recording layer 6, p256, lines 6-9).
Regarding Claim 12, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 1,
wherein a refractive index of the first resin base (first substrate 3, p256, Satou) is in a range from 1.48 to 1.70 (substrate is made of polycarbonate, pg 257. This is the same resin as used in the current disclosure and hence has the same refractive index range).
Regarding Claim 21, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of claim 1.
Satou-Nagase teaches MC value of the first resin base is 0.10 ((Michelson contrast value 0.10, pg 21, lines 865-868, Example 1, Nagase).
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein the MC value is 0.110 or less.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Nagase teaches that MC value is in a range of values. An increase in MC will result in increasing roughness of film and results in increasing adherence while reducing image quality and a decrease would reduce contrast with decreasing roughness and results in decreasing adherence while increasing image quality. Hence, the MC value is a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 claimed MC values, and one would have chosen the MC value according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adherence of the film. One would have been motivated to have MC value to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with good adherence.
Regarding Claim 22, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of claim 1.
Satou-Nagase teaches MC value of the first resin base is 0.10 ((Michelson contrast value 0.10, pg 21, lines 865-868, Example 1, Nagase).
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein the MC value is 0.0.070 or less.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Nagase teaches that MC value is in a range of values. An increase in MC will result in increasing roughness of film and results in increasing adherence while reducing image quality and a decrease would reduce contrast with decreasing roughness and results in decreasing adherence while increasing image quality. Hence, the MC value is a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 claimed MC values, and one would have chosen the MC value according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adherence of the film. One would have been motivated to have MC value to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with good adherence.
Regarding Claim 23, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of claim 1.
Satou-Nagase teaches MC value of the first resin base is 0.10 ((Michelson contrast value 0.10, pg 21, lines 865-868, Example 1, Nagase).
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein the MC value is 0.020 or less.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Nagase teaches that MC value is in a range of values. An increase in MC will result in increasing roughness of film and results in increasing adherence while reducing image quality and a decrease would reduce contrast with decreasing roughness and results in decreasing adherence while increasing image quality. Hence, the MC value is a result effective variable.
Therefore, 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 claimed MC values, and one would have chosen the MC value according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving image quality with adherence of the film. One would have been motivated to have MC value to be within the claimed range balancing a desired image quality with good adherence.
Regarding Claim 24, Satou-Nagase teaches an AR glass (head-up display, para 304, Satou), comprising: the light guide plate of claim 1.
Claim(s) 5-8,10,16-18,20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al (US 2010/0112460 A1) in view of Nagase et al (WO 2017/138637, of record) and further in view of Kadono et al (US 2019/0227309 A1).
Regarding Claims 5, 16, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claims 2,3.
However, Satou -Nagase does not teach
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base.
Satou -Nagase and Kadono are related as substrates and barrier layers.
Kadono teaches (fig 1A)
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer (water vapor barrier layer, p84, lines 1-7, water vapor barrier layer 721, p148, lines 8-11) is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base (protective substrate 720, p148, lines 1-3) (water vapor barrier layer is made of Al2O3, p148, lines 8-11 and resin base is made of PET, p148, lines 1-3, these are the same materials used as in the current disclosure (pg 64, lines 5-6, p89, lines 1-2) and hence the refractive indices have the same relationship).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer and resin base of Satou -Nagase to have a refractive index of the first barrier layer is higher than a refractive index of the first resin base of Kadono for the purpose of utilizing commonly known materials in the suppression of unwanted phenomena due to moisture (p9, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claims 6,17, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claims 2,3.
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer is 1.48 or more.
Satou-Nagase and Kadono are related as substrates and barrier layers.
Kadono teaches (fig 1A)
wherein a refractive index of the first barrier layer (water vapor barrier layer, p84, lines 1-7, water vapor barrier layer 721, p148, lines 8-11) (water vapor barrier layer is made of Al2O3, p148, lines 8-11) is 1.48 or more (it is the same material used in the current disclosure, p89, lines 1-2 and hence its refractive index is 1.48 or more).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer of Satou-Nagase to include the refractive index of 1.48 or more Kadono for the purpose of utilizing commonly known materials in the suppression of unwanted phenomena due to moisture (p9, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claims 7,18, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claims 2,3.
However, Satou -Nagase does not teach
wherein the first barrier layer comprises an inorganic material.
Satou -Nagase and Kadono are related as substrates and barrier layers.
Kadono teaches (fig 1A)
wherein the first barrier layer (water vapor barrier layer, p84, lines 1-7, water vapor barrier layer 721, p148, lines 8-11) (water vapor barrier layer is made of Al2O3, p148, lines 8-11) comprises an inorganic material (Al2O3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of first barrier layer of Satou -Nagase to include the inorganic material of Kadono for the purpose of utilizing commonly known materials in the suppression of unwanted phenomena due to moisture (p9, lines 1-6).
Regarding Claim 8, Satou -Nagase -Kadono teach the light guide plate of Claim 7,
wherein the first barrier layer (water vapor barrier layer is made of Al2O3, p148, lines 8-11, Kadono) comprises silicon oxide, silicon nitrogen oxide, diamond-like carbon, aluminum oxide and/or glass (Al2O3).
Regarding Claims 10,20, Satou -Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claims 2,3.
However, Satou -Nagase does not teach
wherein the first barrier layer comprises a steam barrier material.
Satou -Nagase and Kadono are related as substrates and barrier layers.
Kadono teaches (fig 1A),
wherein the first barrier layer (water vapor barrier layer, p84, lines 1-7, water vapor barrier layer 721, p148, lines 8-11) comprises a steam barrier material (water vapor barrier layer, p84, lines 1-7, water vapor barrier layer 721, p148, lines 8-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of first barrier layer of Satou -Nagase to include the steam barrier material of Kadono for the purpose of utilizing commonly known materials in the suppression of unwanted phenomena due to moisture (p9, lines 1-6).
Claim(s) 9, 19, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al (US 2010/0112460 A1) in view of Nagase et al (WO 2017/138637, of record) and further in view of Miki et al (JP 2008/139768 A, of record).
Regarding Claim 9, Takuji-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 2.
However, Takuji-Nagase does not teach
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on a resin film.
Takuji-Nagase and Miki are related as substrates and barrier layers.
Miki teaches (fig 1b)
wherein the first barrier layer (gas barrier layer 4, p25, lines 12-15, p40, lines 1-3) is disposed on a resin film (adhesive, resin, p44, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer of Takuji-Nagase to be disposed on a resin film of Miki for the purpose of utilizing commonly known materials for improving adhesion (p44, lines 1-2).
Regarding Claim 19, Takuji-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 3.
However, Takuji-Nagase does not teach
wherein the first barrier layer is disposed on a resin film.
Takuji-Nagase and Miki are related as substrates and barrier layers.
Miki teaches (fig 1b)
wherein the first barrier layer (gas barrier layer 4, p25, lines 12-15, p40, lines 1-3) is disposed on a resin film (adhesive, resin, p44, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first barrier layer of Takuji-Nagase to be disposed on a resin film of Miki for the purpose of utilizing commonly known materials for improving adhesion (p44, lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al (US 2010/0112460 A1) in view of Nagase et al (WO 2017/138637, of record) and further in view of Urano et al (US 2012/0193617 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 1.
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein the first resin base contains at least one resin selected from the group consisting of a poly(meth)acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, a cyclic polyolefin, and a polycarbonate.
Satou-Nagase and Urano are related as a resin base.
Urano teaches (fig 2),
wherein the first resin base (substrate 1, para 468, substrate A, para 470) contains at least one resin selected from the group consisting of a poly(meth)acrylic resin, an epoxy resin, a cyclic polyolefin, and a polycarbonate ((poly(meth)acrylic resins, para 470).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first resin base of Satou-Nagase to include the poly (meth) acrylic resin of Urano for the purpose of utilizing commonly utilized resins for base members of an optical product for ease of forming (para 471).
Claim(s) 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al (US 2010/0112460 A1) in view of Nagase et al (WO 2017/138637, of record) and further in view of Khanarian et al (Optical properties of cyclic olefin copolymers, Op. Eng 40(6), pgs 1024-1029, june 2001, of record).
Regarding Claim 14, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 1.
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein a heat shrinkage rate measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015 of the first resin base is less than 3%.
Satou-Nagase and Khanarian are related as resin base film materials.
Khanarian teaches cyclo olefin polymers wherein a heat shrinkage is low ( low shrinkage, high use temp, pg1029, sec: conclusions, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first resin base of Satou-Nagase to include the low heat shrinkage rate of Khanarian for the purpose of attractive features in high use temperature applications with minimizing of aberration and distortion in optical systems (pg 1029, sec Conclusions, lines 1-8).
Satou-Nagase-Khanarian teach heat shrinkage rate measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015 of the first resin base is low and this low rate is considered to be a very small percentage.
However, Satou-Nagase-Khanarian do not teach
wherein a heat shrinkage rate measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015 of the first resin base is less than 3%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a heat shrinkage rate measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015 of the first resin base is less than 3% since the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Nabber, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and further being motivated to have a heat shrinkage rate measured based on annex A of JIS K 6718-1: 2015 of the first resin base is less than 3% for the purpose of having a display with improved image quality.
Claim(s) 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satou et al (US 2010/0112460 A1) in view of Nagase et al (WO 2017/138637, of record) and further in view of Katayama et al (CN 103240936 A, 08-14-2013, of record).
Regarding Claim 15, Satou-Nagase teaches the light guide plate of Claim 1.
However, Satou-Nagase does not teach
wherein an arithmetic average roughness Ra of a surface of the first resin base is 10 nm or less.
Satou-Nagase and Katayama are related as resin base film materials.
Katayama teaches
wherein an arithmetic average roughness Ra of a surface of the resin base (polyimide resin layer, p36, lines 9-15) is 10 nm or less (5nm or less, p36, lines 9-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first resin base of Satou-Nagase to have an arithmetic average roughness Ra of a surface of the first resin base to be 10 nm or less of Katayama for the purpose of having even optical properties and better performance (p36, lines 9-15).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yamashita et al (US 2013/0294683 A1) teaches a 3D image device with a technique for enhancing brightness and shadow contrast.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights