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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “a stack of a resin layer and an optical film” recite in claim 8 is confusing and indefinite since it is not what considered to be this optical film. The phrase can only be examined in the broadest interpretation.
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) 1-8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent application publication by Ko et al (US 2014/0293420 A1).
Ko et al teaches, with regard to claim 1, a polarizing plate that is comprised of a polarizer (105, Figures 1 and 2), a stack of a quarter waveplate that is a first reverse dispersion retardation film serves as the first negative wavelength dispersion retardation (115) and a positive C retardation layer (120) on at least one surface of the polarizer, (please see paragraph [0023]).
Ko et al teaches that the stack structure may have a degree of biaxiality of about 0.8 or less or about 0.5 to about 0.8 at a wavelength of 550 nm, (please see paragraphs [0028] and [0029]). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the degree of biaxiality of about 0.1 to 0.5 at a wavelength of 450 nm, and a degree of biaxiality of about 0.3 to 0.7 at a wavelength of 650 nm. But Ko et al does teach that the degree of biaxiality (NzA) is determined by the expression of NzA = (nxA-nzA) / (nxA-nyA), with nxA, nyA and nzA being refractive indices in x-, y- and z-axis directions, (please see paragraph [0028]). It is within general skill in the art to apply this expression to select the refractive indices of the stack to have the claimed values of degree of biaxiality at 450 nm and at 650 nm for the benefit of allowing the polarizing plate to have the desired properties.
With regard to claim 2, Ko et al teaches that the first reverse dispersion retardation film or the first negative wavelength dispersion retardation (115) is disposed between the polarizer (105) and the positive C retardation layer (120, please see Figure 1).
With regard to claim 3, Ko et al teaches that the stack has an out-of-plane retardation of 0 to 300 nm at a wavelength of 550 nm, (please see paragraph [0028]) which reads on -55 nm to 5 nm. This reference does not teach explicitly the stack has the claimed values of the in-plane retardation. But as demonstrated by Ko et al it is known in the art that the in-plane retardation is defined as Re= (nx-ny)*d, with nx, ny are refractive indices in the x- and y-axis and d is the thickness of the retardation plate. One skilled in the art would therefore be able to select the refractive indices of the stack to yield the specific in-plane retardation values for the benefit of allowing the polarizing plate to have the desired properties.
With regard to claim 4, Ko et al teaches that the reverse dispersion retardation film or the negative wavelength dispersion retardation layer has an in-plane (Re) at wavelength 550 nm is about 100 nm to about 200 nm and an out-of-plane retardation (Rth) at wavelength 550 nm of about 0 nm to about 300 nm, (please see paragraph [0041]).
With regard to claim 5, a positive C retardation plate would have positive wavelength dispersion.
With regard to claim 6, Ko et al does not teach explicitly that the polarizer has a crossed transmittance of 0.2%. However, Ko et al teaches that the polarizer is made by adoption of dichroic material such as iodine to polyvinyl alcohol resin, (please see paragraph [0033]) which may have light blocking property which means the crossed spectral transmittance may be very low.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, Ko et al teaches that the polarizer (105) may comprise resin and a protective film (110) including resin such as polyester may be on one of the surface of the polarizer (please see Figures 1 and 2 and paragraph [0035]). As for claim 8, since the feature concerning “optical film” is rejected under 35 USC 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above. This feature can only be examined in the broadest interpretation. It is within general level skilled in the art to provide stack of an optical film, such as an isotropic film (125, Figure 3), and resin layer, such as protective layer, on the polarizer for the benefit of allowing the polarizer to be utilized with any optical film.
With regard to claim 13, Ko et al teaches the polarizing plate further comprises a protective film (110, Figures 1 and 2) on the at least one polarizer.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Nam et al (US 2012/0026585 A1).
The polarizing plate taught by Ko et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 9-11, Ko et al does not teach explicitly to include a second negative wavelength dispersion retardation layer. Nam et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a stack of a first retarder (130, Figure 6) and a second retarder (160) that are formed at a first and a second (i.e. opposite) surfaces of a polarizer (120). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Nam et al to modify the polarizing plate to include a second negative wavelength dispersion retarder for the benefit of providing desired polarization properties. It is within general level of skill in the art to make the first and second negative wavelength dispersion retarders to have the same short wavelength dispersion and the same long wavelength dispersion as an obvious design choice to one skilled in the art to achieve the desired polarization properties.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al and Nam et al as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Morozov et al (US 2016/0131812 A1).
The polarizing plate taught by Ko et al in combination with the teachings of Nam et al as described in claims 1 and 9 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 12, these references do not teach that the slow axis of the first negative wavelength dispersion retarder is orthogonal to a slow axis of the second negative wavelength dispersion retardation layer. Morozov et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a combination of two A positive plates (or negative wavelength dispersion plates) with orthogonal short axes, (please see Figure 4) would give a net resulting phase shift as shown in Figure 6. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Morozov et al to modify the first and second negative wavelength dispersion retarders to have orthogonal short axes for the benefit of providing net the phase shift to the polarizing plate.
Claim(s) 14-15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Saneto et al (US 2025/0298238 A1).
The polarizing plate taught by Ko et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 14, Ko et al teaches that the polarizing plate (420, Figure 4) may be utilized with a display unit such as an OLED display panel (405, Figure 4) that implicitly includes a light emitting device to provide an image display apparatus.
This reference however does not teach explicitly to include a pancake lens assembly. Saneto et al in the same field of endeavor teaches an image display apparatus that is comprised of a pancake lens assembly including a half mirror (300, Figures 3 and 4) and a lens element (200) that is placed in front of a display unit (500). Saneto et al teaches an optical film (100) including polarizing plate with polarizer (106 and 103, Figure 5) , positive C plate (104) and a retardation layer (105) having reverse dispersity (please see paragraph [0326]) is incorporated in the display apparatus, (please see Figures 3 and 4). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Saneto et al to modify the display apparatus to include a pancake lens assembly for the benefit of enhancing the viewing quality, (please see Figure 3).
These references however do not teach explicitly that the image display apparatus is a stereoscopic image display apparatus. But this feature is considered to be intended use since it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
With regard to claim 15, Saneto et al teaches that the laminated optical film (10 or 100) may be either placed in front of the pancake lens assembly or between the display unit and the pancake lane assembly, (please see Figure 6), for the benefit of allowing ghost image be eliminated.
With regard to claim 20, these references do not teach explicitly that the pancake lens assembly comprises a third polarizer. However, it is within general level skill in the art to include polarizer as needed for reducing unwanted noise light.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al and Saneto et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Morozov et al (US 2016/0131812 A1).
The polarizing plate taught by Ko et al in combination with the teachings of Saneto et al as described in claims 1 and 14 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 16, Ko et al in light of Saneto et al teaches that laminated optical film (100 and 10) may be placed in front of the pancake lens (please see Figures 3 and 4) or behind the pancake lens, (please see Figure 6). It is either implicitly true or obvious to modify by one skilled in the art to include the negative wavelength dispersive retarder for providing circularly polarized light.
These references however do not teach that the slow axis of the first negative wavelength dispersion retarder is orthogonal to a slow axis of the second negative wavelength dispersion retardation layer. Morozov et al in the same field of endeavor teaches that a combination of two A positive plates (or negative wavelength dispersion plates) with orthogonal short axes, (please see Figure 4) would give a net resulting phase shift as shown in Figure 6. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Morozov et al to modify the first and second negative wavelength dispersion retarders to have orthogonal short axes for the benefit of providing net the phase shift to the polarizing plate.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko et al and Saneto et al as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of the US patent application publication by Yan et al (US 2024/0094455 A1).
The polarizing plate taught by Ko et al in combination with the teachings of Saneto et al as described in claims 1 and 14 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 17, these references do not teach explicitly to include a second polarizing plate between the first polarizing plate and the pancake lens assembly.
Yan et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a waveplate arrangement wherein a stack of polarizing plates each comprises polarizer, a negative wavelength dispersion retarder (N-QWP) and a positive C plate, (please see Figure 4) may be arranged in sequence. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Yan et al to further include a second polarizing plate comprises polarizer, negative wavelength dispersive retarder and positive C plate for the benefit of achieving desired polarization properties for the display apparatus to improve image viewing quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-19 are 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: of the prior art references considered none has discloses a stereoscopic image display apparatus that is comprised of a first polarizing plate comprises a polarizer, a stack of first negative wavelength dispersion retardation layer and a positive C retardation layer wherein the stack has specific degrees of biaxiality respectively at wavelengths 450 nm, 550 nm and 650 nm (details disclosed in based claim 1) and s pancake lens assembly. The display apparatus further comprises a second polarizing plate comprises a second polarizer, a first retardation layer and a positive C retardation layer sequentially bonded to a surface of the second polarizer facing the display unit and a second retardation layer bonded to a side of the second polarizer facing the pancake lens assembly as explicitly set forth in claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US patent application publication by Cho et al (US 2018/0031748 A1) discloses a polarizing plate that is comprised of a polarizer, a negative wavelength dispersion retardation layer or the quarter wave film and a positive C plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 900AM-430PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights