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 .
The instant application having Application No. 18/958,112 filed on 11/25/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 200, 214, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on application JP2022-093865 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokorny (US 20040165140 A1), in view of Yamada (WO 2022075475 A1)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Pokorny discloses an optical laminate, in at least Figure 9, comprising, in the following order:
a first layer (206 "first layer", Figure 9);
a second layer (204 "second layer", Figure 9);
a third layer (306 "third layer", Figure 9); and
a fourth layer (304 "fourth layer", Figure 9),
wherein all of the first layer (206 "first layer") to the fourth layer (304 "fourth layer") are cholesteric liquid crystal layers (paragraph 0092 states "The first cholesteric liquid crystal composition may form a first layer 206 disposed on the substrate 200. The second cholesteric liquid composition may form a second layer 204 disposed on top of the first layer 206", paragraph 0105 states "The third cholesteric liquid crystal composition may form a third layer 306 disposed on the second layer 204. The fourth cholesteric liquid composition may form a fourth layer 304 disposed on top of the third layer 306"),
all of the first layer (206 "first layer") to the fourth layer (304 "fourth layer") have light reflectivity (paragraph 0106 states "the first layer 206 may reflect blue visible light and the second layer 204 may reflect red visible light and the third layer 306 may reflect green visible light and the fourth layer 304 may reflect yellow visible light").
However, Pokorny does not disclose a central wavelength of reflected light of the first layer is within a range of 430 to 570 nm, a central wavelength of reflected light of the second layer is within a range of 550 to 670 nm, a central wavelength of reflected light of the third layer is within a range of 430 to 570 nm, a central wavelength of reflected light of the fourth layer is within a range of 550 to 670 nm, a sign of a retardation of the first layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm and a sign of a retardation of the second layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm are opposite to each other, and a sign of a retardation of the third layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm and a sign of a retardation of the fourth layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm are opposite to each other.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the first layer 206 may reflect blue visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that blue visible light lies within the wavelength range of 450-485 nm. This range lies within the claimed range of 430 to 570 nm.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the second layer 204 may reflect red visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that red visible light lies within the wavelength range of 625-750 nm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 550 to 670 nm.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the third layer 306 may reflect green visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that green visible light lies within the wavelength range of 500-565 nm. This range lies within the claimed range of 430 to 570 nm.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the fourth layer 304 may reflect yellow visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that yellow visible light lies within the wavelength range of 565-590 nm. This range lies within the claimed range of 550 to 670 nm.
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Yamada teaches a sign of a retardation of the first layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm and a sign of a retardation of the second layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm are opposite to each other (page 10, paragraph 2 of translation states “the cholesteric liquid crystal phase containing the rod-shaped liquid crystal compound has a positive Rth, whereas the cholesteric liquid crystal phase containing the disc-shaped liquid crystal compound has a negative Rth, so that the Rths of each other cancel each other out. It is preferable because the degree of polarization of the reflected light and the transmitted light can be increased even with respect to the incident light from an oblique direction”), and a sign of a retardation of the third layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm and a sign of a retardation of the fourth layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm are opposite to each other (page 10, paragraph 2 of translation states “the cholesteric liquid crystal phase containing the rod-shaped liquid crystal compound has a positive Rth, whereas the cholesteric liquid crystal phase containing the disc-shaped liquid crystal compound has a negative Rth, so that the Rths of each other cancel each other out. It is preferable because the degree of polarization of the reflected light and the transmitted light can be increased even with respect to the incident light from an oblique direction”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a sign of a retardation of the first layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm and a sign of a retardation of the second layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm are opposite to each other, and a sign of a retardation of the third layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm and a sign of a retardation of the fourth layer in a film thickness direction at a wavelength of 550 nm are opposite to each other, as taught by Yamada, in order to increase the degree of polarization of the reflected light and the transmitted light even with respect to the incident light from an oblique direction (page 10, paragraph 2 of translation).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein the central wavelength of the reflected light of the first layer is within a range of 430 to 480 nm, the central wavelength of the reflected light of the second layer is within a range of 600 to 670 nm, the central wavelength of the reflected light of the third layer is within a range of 520 to 570 nm, and the central wavelength of the reflected light of the fourth layer is within a range of 550 to 620 nm.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the first layer 206 may reflect blue visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that blue visible light lies within the wavelength range of 450-485 nm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 430 to 480 nm.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the second layer 204 may reflect red visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that red visible light lies within the wavelength range of 625-750 nm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 600 to 670 nm.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the third layer 306 may reflect green visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that green visible light lies within the wavelength range of 500-565 nm. This range overlaps with the claimed range of 520 to 570 nm.
Pokorny states in paragraph 0106 that "the fourth layer 304 may reflect yellow visible light", where it is generally accepted in the art that yellow visible light lies within the wavelength range of 565-590 nm. This range lies within the claimed range of 550 to 620 nm.
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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein any one of the first layer or the second layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound, and any one of the third layer or the fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound.
Yamada teaches wherein any one of the first layer (“red light reflecting layer”) or the second layer (“green light reflecting layer”) is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound (page 36, paragraph 12 of translation states "both the red light reflecting layer and the blue light reflecting layer are cholesteric liquid crystal layers made of a rod-shaped liquid crystal compound, and the green light reflecting layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer made of a disk-shaped liquid crystal compound"), and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound (page 36, paragraph 12 of translation states "both the red light reflecting layer and the blue light reflecting layer are cholesteric liquid crystal layers made of a rod-shaped liquid crystal compound, and the green light reflecting layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer made of a disk-shaped liquid crystal compound"), and any one of the third layer (“blue light containing layer”) or the fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound (page 36, paragraph 12 of translation states "both the red light reflecting layer and the blue light reflecting layer are cholesteric liquid crystal layers made of a rod-shaped liquid crystal compound, and the green light reflecting layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer made of a disk-shaped liquid crystal compound").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by wherein any one of the first layer or the second layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound, and any one of the third layer or the fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, as taught by Yamada, in order to increase the degree of polarization of the reflected light and the transmitted light with respect to the incident light from an oblique direction (page 10, paragraph 2 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound such that a fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein a difference in film thickness between each layer from the first layer to the fourth layer is less than 0.5 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize film layers such that a difference in film thickness between each layer from the first layer to the fourth layer is less than 0.5 μm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Pokorny does not disclose a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer; a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light; and a linear polarizer, wherein the reflective circular polarizer is the optical laminate according to claim 1.
Yamada teaches a laminated optical film (100 “laminated optical film”, Figure 3) comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer (103 "reflective circular polarizing element", Figure 3); a retardation layer (105 "retardation layer", Figure 3) that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light (page 3, paragraph 13 of translation states “The retardation layer 105 is a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light”); and a linear polarizer (106 "linear polarizing element", Figure 3), wherein the reflective circular polarizer (103 "reflective circular polarizing element") is the optical laminate according to claim 1 (Figure 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer; a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light; and a linear polarizer, as taught by Yamada, in order to allow for high image sharpness (abstract).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 5, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein the linear polarizer includes a light absorption anisotropic layer which contains at least a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance.
Yamada teaches wherein the linear polarizer (106 "linear polarizing element") includes a light absorption anisotropic layer which contains at least a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance (page 13, paragraph 5 of translation states "It is also preferable that the linear polarizing element used in the laminated optical film of the present invention is a light absorption anisotropic layer containing a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by wherein the linear polarizer includes a light absorption anisotropic layer which contains at least a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance, as taught by Yamada in order to reduce the thickness of the linear polarizer and allow the linear polarizer to have fewer cracks and breaks (page 13, paragraph 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 5, however Pokorny does not disclose a positive C-plate.
Yamada teaches a positive C-plate (102 "positive c-plate", page 26, paragraph 13 of translation, Figure 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a positive C-plate, as taught by Yamada, in order to increase the degree of polarization of transmitted light and reflected light with respect to light incident at an angle (page 26, paragraph 13 of translation).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 5, however Pokorny does not disclose an antireflection layer on a surface.
Yamada teaches an antireflection layer (101 "antireflection layer", Figure 3) on a surface (Figure 3 shows that 101 "antireflection layer" is disposed upon 102 “a positive C plate”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by an antireflection layer on a surface, as taught by Yamada, in order to prevent unintended reflection of the polarized light and reduction of the degree of polarization of transmitted light and reflected light (page 27, paragraph 10 of translation).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 8, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein the antireflection layer is a moth-eye film or an AR film.
Yamada teaches wherein the antireflection layer (101 "antireflection layer") is a moth-eye film or an AR film (page 27, paragraph 12 of translation states "The type of the antireflection layer is not particularly limited, but a moth-eye film, an AR film, or the like is preferable from the viewpoint of further lowering the reflectance. Further, when the laminated optical film is stretched or molded, a moth-eye film is preferable because it can maintain high antireflection performance even if the film thickness fluctuates due to stretching. On the other hand, the AR film is preferable from the viewpoint of good wiping property when dirt adheres to the surface of the antireflection layer and less difficulty in handling such as destruction of the fine structure of the surface").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by wherein the antireflection layer is a moth-eye film or an AR film, as taught by Yamada, in order to maintain high antireflection performance even if the film thickness fluctuates due to stretching and in order to wipe down easily with less difficulty in handling (page 27, paragraph 12 of translation).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Pokorny does not disclose an optical article comprising: the optical laminate according to claim 1.
Yamada teaches an optical article comprising: the optical laminate according to claim 1 (page 5, paragraph 2 of translation states "FIG. 1 is a virtual reality display device using the laminated optical film 100 of the present invention").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by an optical article comprising: the optical laminate according to claim 1, as taught by Yamada, in order to utilize the optical laminate.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 1, however Pokorny does not disclose a virtual reality display device comprising: the optical article according to claim 11.
Yamada teaches virtual reality display device comprising: the optical article according to claim 11 (page 5, paragraph 2 of translation states "FIG. 1 is a virtual reality display device using the laminated optical film 100 of the present invention").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a virtual reality display device comprising: the optical article according to claim 11, as taught by Yamada, in order to utilize the optical laminate.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein any one of the first layer or the second layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound, and any one of the third layer or the fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound.
Yamada teaches wherein any one of the first layer (“red light reflecting layer”) or the second layer (“green light reflecting layer”) is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound (page 36, paragraph 12 of translation states "both the red light reflecting layer and the blue light reflecting layer are cholesteric liquid crystal layers made of a rod-shaped liquid crystal compound, and the green light reflecting layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer made of a disk-shaped liquid crystal compound"), and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound (page 36, paragraph 12 of translation states "both the red light reflecting layer and the blue light reflecting layer are cholesteric liquid crystal layers made of a rod-shaped liquid crystal compound, and the green light reflecting layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer made of a disk-shaped liquid crystal compound"), and any one of the third layer (“blue light containing layer”) or the fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound (page 36, paragraph 12 of translation states "both the red light reflecting layer and the blue light reflecting layer are cholesteric liquid crystal layers made of a rod-shaped liquid crystal compound, and the green light reflecting layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer made of a disk-shaped liquid crystal compound").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by wherein any one of the first layer or the second layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, and the other is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound, and any one of the third layer or the fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a rod-like liquid crystal compound, as taught by Yamada, in order to increase the degree of polarization of the reflected light and the transmitted light with respect to the incident light from an oblique direction (page 10, paragraph 2 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound such that a fourth layer is a cholesteric liquid crystal layer formed of a disk-like liquid crystal compound, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein a difference in film thickness between each layer from the first layer to the fourth layer is less than 0.5 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize film layers such that a difference in film thickness between each layer from the first layer to the fourth layer is less than 0.5 μm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 2, however Pokorny does not disclose a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer; a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light; and a linear polarizer, wherein the reflective circular polarizer is the optical laminate according to claim 2.
Yamada teaches a laminated optical film (100 “laminated optical film”, Figure 3) comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer (103 "reflective circular polarizing element", Figure 3); a retardation layer (105 "retardation layer", Figure 3) that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light (page 3, paragraph 13 of translation states “The retardation layer 105 is a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light”); and a linear polarizer (106 "linear polarizing element", Figure 3), wherein the reflective circular polarizer (103 "reflective circular polarizing element") is the optical laminate according to claim 2 (Figure 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a laminated optical film comprising, in the following order, at least: a reflective circular polarizer; a retardation layer that converts circularly polarized light into linearly polarized light; and a linear polarizer, as taught by Yamada, in order to allow for high image sharpness (abstract).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 15, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein the linear polarizer includes a light absorption anisotropic layer which contains at least a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance.
Yamada teaches wherein the linear polarizer (106 "linear polarizing element") includes a light absorption anisotropic layer which contains at least a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance (page 13, paragraph 5 of translation states "It is also preferable that the linear polarizing element used in the laminated optical film of the present invention is a light absorption anisotropic layer containing a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by wherein the linear polarizer includes a light absorption anisotropic layer which contains at least a liquid crystal compound and a dichroic substance, as taught by Yamada in order to reduce the thickness of the linear polarizer and allow the linear polarizer to have fewer cracks and breaks (page 13, paragraph 5 of translation).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 15, however Pokorny does not disclose a positive C-plate.
Yamada teaches a positive C-plate (102 "positive c-plate", page 26, paragraph 13 of translation, Figure 3).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a positive C-plate, as taught by Yamada, in order to increase the degree of polarization of transmitted light and reflected light with respect to light incident at an angle (page 26, paragraph 13 of translation).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 15, however Pokorny does not disclose an antireflection layer on a surface.
Yamada teaches an antireflection layer (101 "antireflection layer", Figure 3) on a surface (Figure 3 shows that 101 "antireflection layer" is disposed upon 102 “a positive C plate”).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by an antireflection layer on a surface, as taught by Yamada, in order to prevent unintended reflection of the polarized light and reduction of the degree of polarization of transmitted light and reflected light (page 27, paragraph 10 of translation).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 18, however Pokorny does not disclose wherein the antireflection layer is a moth-eye film or an AR film.
Yamada teaches wherein the antireflection layer (101 "antireflection layer") is a moth-eye film or an AR film (page 27, paragraph 12 of translation states "The type of the antireflection layer is not particularly limited, but a moth-eye film, an AR film, or the like is preferable from the viewpoint of further lowering the reflectance. Further, when the laminated optical film is stretched or molded, a moth-eye film is preferable because it can maintain high antireflection performance even if the film thickness fluctuates due to stretching. On the other hand, the AR film is preferable from the viewpoint of good wiping property when dirt adheres to the surface of the antireflection layer and less difficulty in handling such as destruction of the fine structure of the surface").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by wherein the antireflection layer is a moth-eye film or an AR film, as taught by Yamada, in order to maintain high antireflection performance even if the film thickness fluctuates due to stretching and in order to wipe down easily with less difficulty in handling (page 27, paragraph 12 of translation).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pokorny (US 20040165140 A1), in view of Yamada (WO 2022075475 A1)(see attached machine translation), and further in view of Sato (WO 2022050319 A1)(see attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 5, however Pokorny does not disclose a resin base material in which a peak temperature of tan δ is 170°C or lower.
Sato teaches a resin base material (S1 “resin base material”) in which a peak temperature of tan δ is 170°C or lower (first paragraph of page 52 of translation states "Technoloy S001G (methacrylic resin 50 μm thick, tan δ peak temperature 128 ° C., Sumika Acrylic Sales Co., Ltd.) was used as the resin base material S1 on the surface of the light absorption anisotropic layer of the laminated body").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a resin base material in which a peak temperature of tan δ is 170°C or lower, as taught by Sato, in order to prevent damage to heat sensitive substrates.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Pokorny and Yamada disclose all the limitations of claim 15, however Pokorny does not disclose a resin base material in which a peak temperature of tan δ is 170°C or lower.
Sato teaches a resin base material (S1 “resin base material”) in which a peak temperature of tan δ is 170°C or lower (first paragraph of page 52 of translation states "Technoloy S001G (methacrylic resin 50 μm thick, tan δ peak temperature 128 ° C., Sumika Acrylic Sales Co., Ltd.) was used as the resin base material S1 on the surface of the light absorption anisotropic layer of the laminated body").
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the optical laminate of Pokorny modified by a resin base material in which a peak temperature of tan δ is 170°C or lower, as taught by Sato, in order to prevent damage to heat sensitive substrates.
Contact Information
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Hoshino (US 7943392 B2) discloses an apparatus which contains a cholesteric liquid crystal layer, a multilayer film, and reflected light which includes circular polarization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAINA M SWANSON whose telephone number is (703)756-5809. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/ALAINA MARIE SWANSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights