CTNF 19/181,453 CTNF 94546 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 , 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker et. al. (U.S. 20190374140, December 12, 2019)(hereinafter, “Tucker”) in view of Wakita (U.S. 20210161408, June 3, 2021)(hereinafter, “Wakita” ) . Regarding Claim 1 , Tucker teaches: A blood flow measurement device (Fig. 2, multi-wavelength imaging system, [0055]) comprising: a light source unit that irradiates an object with near-infrared rays (“As illustrated in FIG. 2, the system 205 includes at least two laser light sources, visible 230 and NIR 231…” [0055]; “…the light produced by the lasers 230 and 231 may be provided to a fiber 233, which may have multiple fiber legs and may include a plurality of splitting fibers 235 as illustrated.” [0056]); and a light receiving section that receives scattered light generated by scattering of the near-infrared rays emitted from the light source unit by the object (“The reflected visible light contains the surface movement information of the sample 260 and, thus, reflects the motion artifact. The reflected NIR light contains the surface and subsurface movement information of the sample 260 and, thus, reflects both motion artifact and movement of the blood flow.” [0056]), the blood flow measurement device further comprising: a first polarizing element that is disposed on a front surface of the light source unit, and changes a polarization state of the near-infrared rays (“…the light on the fibers may pass through various elements of an imaging system 237 before reaching the sample 260. For example, the light may traverse polarizers, collimators, expanders, diffusers and the like before reaching the sample 260…” [0056]. See Fig. 2); and a second polarizing element that is disposed on a front surface of the light receiving section, includes a layer formed of a liquid crystal compound, and changes a polarization state of the near-infrared rays (“…the beamsplitter 280 may be a dichroic beam splitting system that separates the NIR 283 and visible light 285. The separated light 283 and 285 may pass through polarizers, filters and the like 287 before being delivered to the camera 210. As discussed above, the camera 210 can be, for example, a split-image (single sensor) or multi-sensor camera..” [0057]). Tucker does not explicitly teach: the first and second polarizers include a layer formed of a liquid crystal compound. Wakita in the field of light signal measurement systems teaches: “…a lens array 1720, a polarization filter 1730, a liquid crystal plate 1740, and a louver-type privacy filter…1750.” [0055]; “…the S-polarized light can be used to reduce the power consumption. In a condition in which there is a lot of ambient light, the P-polarized light can be used by applying a voltage to the liquid crystal plate 1740 to enhance the external light resistance.” [0506]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first and second polarizers in Tucker to include a layer formed of a liquid crystal compound as taught in Wakita “…to enhance the external light resistance.” (Wakita, [0506]). Regarding Claim 2 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. Tucker does not explicitly teach: wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element is a linear polarizer. Wakita in the field of light signal measurement systems teaches: “ The laser light source 151 emits linearly polarized laser light.” [0482]; “…a lens array 1720, a polarization filter 1730, a liquid crystal plate 1740, and a louver-type privacy filter…1750.” [0055]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element in the combination of references to be a linear polarizer as taught in Wakita to reduce unwanted reflections and increasing color saturation. Regarding Claim 7 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. Tucker does not teach: wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in- plane direction. Wakita in the field of light signal measurement systems teaches: “The liquid crystal plate 1740 has a polarization direction which is rotated by 90 degrees between a state in which a voltage is applied and a state in which a voltage is not applied. The liquid crystal plate 1740 is disposed between the polarization filter 1730 and a louver filter 1750.” [0504]; “The light emitting unit 1900 is configured such that the optical axis C1 of the laser light L emitted from the lens 1920 is inclined with respect to the perpendicular line Lh and the optical axis C1 crosses the perpendicular line Lh on the surface of the living body 600.” [0527]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of references such that the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in- plane direction as taught in Goto to “…increase in a birefringence in accordance with an increase in a measurement wavelength…” (Goto, [0004]). Regarding Claim 9 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 9 further recites limitations, wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in-plane direction. These limitations are present in claim 7 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 3-6 , 11 , 13 , 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker and Wakita as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Goto et. al. (U.S. 20210382349, December 9, 2021)(hereinafter, “Goto” ) . Regarding Claim 3 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. The combination of references does not teach: wherein the first polarizing element further includes a X/4 plate. Goto in the field of near-infrared systems teaches: “…the above-mentioned ideal λ/4 plate has “negative dispersion” characteristics in that a phase difference increases as a measurement wavelength increases since the phase difference is in a relationship in proportional with the measurement wavelength as indicated by a dotted line in FIG. 1.” [0056]; “… the λ/4 plate is a plate having a function of converting linearly polarized light…” [0263]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first polarizing element in the combination of references to include a X/4 plate as taught in Goto to “…increase in a birefringence in accordance with an increase in a measurement wavelength…” (Goto, [0004]). Regarding Claim 4 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. The combination of Tucker and Wakita do not teach: wherein the X/4 plate exhibits reverse wavelength dispersibility. Goto in the field of near-infrared systems teaches: “…the above-mentioned ideal λ/4 plate has “negative dispersion” characteristics in that a phase difference increases as a measurement wavelength increases since the phase difference is in a relationship in proportional with the measurement wavelength as indicated by a dotted line in FIG. 1.” [0056]; “The type of the polymer is not particularly limited, but is preferably a reverse wavelength dispersible polymer.” [0202]; “… the λ/4 plate is a plate having a function of converting linearly polarized light…” [0263]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the X/4 plate in the combination of references to exhibit reverse wavelength dispersibility as taught in Goto to “…increase in a birefringence in accordance with an increase in a measurement wavelength…” (Goto, [0004]). Regarding Claim 5 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. Tucker does not teach: wherein the first polarizing element has a first linear polarizer, a retardation layer, and a second linear polarizer in this order, and at least one of the first linear polarizer or the second linear polarizer is the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound. Wakita in the field of light signal measurement systems teaches: “…Re(λ) and Rth(λ) represent an in-plane retardation and a thickness-direction retardation at a wavelength of λ…” [0045]; “…a lens array 1720, a polarization filter 1730, a liquid crystal plate 1740, and a louver-type privacy filter…1750.” [0055]; “…the S-polarized light can be used to reduce the power consumption. In a condition in which there is a lot of ambient light, the P-polarized light can be used by applying a voltage to the liquid crystal plate 1740 to enhance the external light resistance.” [0506]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first or second linear polarizers in Tucker to include a layer formed of a liquid crystal compound as taught in Wakita “…to enhance the external light resistance.” (Wakita, [0506]). Goto in the field of near-infrared systems teaches: “…the above-mentioned ideal λ/4 plate has “negative dispersion” characteristics in that a phase difference increases as a measurement wavelength increases since the phase difference is in a relationship in proportional with the measurement wavelength as indicated by a dotted line in FIG. 1.” [0056]; “The type of the polymer is not particularly limited, but is preferably a reverse wavelength dispersible polymer.” [0202]; “… the λ/4 plate is a plate having a function of converting linearly polarized light…” [0263]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first polarizing element in the combination of references to include retardation layer as taught in Goto to “…increase in a birefringence in accordance with an increase in a measurement wavelength…” (Goto, [0004]). Regarding Claim 6 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. The combination of Tucker and Wakita do not teach: wherein the retardation layer exhibits reverse wavelength dispersibility. Goto in the field of near-infrared systems teaches: “…the above-mentioned ideal λ/4 plate has “negative dispersion” characteristics in that a phase difference increases as a measurement wavelength increases since the phase difference is in a relationship in proportional with the measurement wavelength as indicated by a dotted line in FIG. 1.” [0056]; “The type of the polymer is not particularly limited, but is preferably a reverse wavelength dispersible polymer.” [0202]; “… the λ/4 plate is a plate having a function of converting linearly polarized light…” [0263]. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of references such that the retardation layer exhibits reverse wavelength dispersibility as taught in Goto to “…increase in a birefringence in accordance with an increase in a measurement wavelength…” (Goto, [0004]). Regarding Claim 11 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 11 further recites limitations, wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in-plane direction. These limitations are present in claims 7 and 9 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 13 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 13 further recites limitations, wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in- plane direction. These limitations are present in claims 7 and 9 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 15 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 15 further recites limitations, wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in-plane direction. These limitations are present in claims 7 and 9 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 17 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 17 further recites limitations, wherein the layer formed of the liquid crystal compound included in the first polarizing element has a liquid crystal alignment pattern in which an orientation of an optical axis derived from the liquid crystal compound changes while continuously rotating along at least one in- plane direction. These limitations are present in claims 7 and 9 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker and Wakita as applied to claim 1-2 and 7 above, and further in view of Ichihashi et. al. (JP 2007108732, April 26, 2007)(hereinafter, “Ichihashi” ) . Regarding Claim 8 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. The combination of references does not teach: wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. Ichihashi in the field of polarizing plates teaches: “The λ / 4 plate has a great many applications, and is already used for a reflective LCD, a transflective LCD, a brightness enhancement film, a pickup for an optical disk, and a PS conversion element.”; “The disk-shaped core (D) is particularly preferably triphenylene (Z4).” Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the liquid crystal compound in the combination of references to be a disk-like liquid crystal compound as taught in Ichihashi for “…manufactured with high productivity and has improved viewing angle characteristics and backlight efficiency.” (Ichihashi, Description). Regarding Claim 10 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 10 further recites limitations, wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. These limitations are present in claims 8 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 19 , the combination of Tucker and Wakita teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 19 further recites limitations, wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. These limitations are present in claims 8 and 10 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 12, 14, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker, Wakita and Goto as applied to claim 3 and 7 above, and further in view of Ichihashi . Regarding Claim 12 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 12 further recites limitations, wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. These limitations are present in claims 8 and 10 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 14 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 14 further recites limitations, wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. These limitations are present in claims 8 and 10 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 16 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 16 further recites limitations, wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. These limitations are present in claims 8 and 10 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Regarding Claim 18 , the combination of Tucker, Wakita and Goto teach the claim limitations as noted above. Claim 18 further recites limitations, wherein the liquid crystal compound is a rod-like liquid crystal compound or a disk-like liquid crystal compound. These limitations are present in claims 8 and 10 and is therefore, rejected under the same rationale. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL FARAG whose telephone number is (571)270-3432. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30 M-F. 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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. /AMAL ALY FARAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 2 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 3 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 4 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 5 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 6 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 7 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 8 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 9 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 10 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 11 Art Unit: 3798 Application/Control Number: 19/181,453 Page 12 Art Unit: 3798
Prosecution Insights