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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 8/28//2025. Claims 17, 22-24, 30-31, 33, 35 and 31 are amended and claims 17-20, 22-27, 29-31, 33, and 35 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 17-27, 29-31, 33, and 35 are 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 prosecution record regarding “layered”, “thermoformed”, “consolidated”, and “extruded” has been discussed in prior Office Actions and corresponding Responses. Additionally, in the 8/28/2025 Response Applicant argues the claim continues to define a structurally distinct invention over apparatuses formed by different means. As would have been understood to a person having ordinary skill in the art, both processes of thermoforming and consolidation capture at least species that lack distinguishable interfaces as these processes cause physical and/or chemical changes to interfaces, migration of constituents, and blurring of the distinction between layers (see U.S. 7,929,816). It is acknowledged that the scope of the claim also encompasses species of a final, consolidated, and thermoformed product that have more siloed layers (i.e. a final product with narrow, discontinuous interfaces). Examiner maintains that the claims utilize language describing processes that would necessarily structurally limit intermediate processes (e.g. coextruded layers prior to consolidation and thermoforming) but would not necessarily structurally limit the final product (i.e. consolidation and thermoforming may or may not alter the intermediate product of co-extruded layers). In other words, the scope of the claim includes the following species: (1) a consolidated, thermoformed final product with sharply discontinuous interfaces, (2) a consolidated, thermoformed final product with continuous gradients and lacking interfaces, (3) a consolidated, thermoformed final product with interfaces on a spectrum between (1) and (2) above. The indefiniteness of the claim stems from Applicant appearing to argue that the scope of the claim that excludes (2) above, and thus muddling the metes and bounds of the claim language. While the Pojman reference is not relied upon in isolation to evidence the obviousness of the claimed invention, the teachings of Pojman detail a specie that falls more clearly in (2) above and Applicant’s argument against the Pojman device as not teaching that which it is relied upon muddles the scope of invention. Specie (2) above is not excluded from the scope of the claim, thus a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure of the claimed final product (i.e. coextruded, consolidated, thermoformed) may be indistinguishable from the final products cited in prior art formed by alternate processes (i.e. excluding extrusion, consolidation, and/or thermoforming).
Examiner notes that the amended form of the claims, including “with adjacent polymer film layers having progressively different properties” does not clarify the metes and bounds of the claim. The language “progressively different” does not substantively clarify that which the remaining context (e.g. “varying conventrations”, “multilayered gradient optical element”, “gradient”, etc.) limit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Pat. No. 7,929,816 to Meir et al. (hereinafter Meir).
Regarding claims 17 and 31, Meir discloses a multilayered gradient optical element, comprising: a thermoformed (“application of heat and/or pressure so as to at least partially mix respective compositions at common edges of adjacent core structures 18 … the heat and/or pressure treatment may result in a concentration gradient across the lateral direction of the core structures 18… to have a smooth profile along the optical mean free path”; col. 18, ll. 41-61), consolidated plurality of extruded (Figs. 5-7) polymer films (“core structures 18 typically include or consist essentially of a waveguide material … a thermoplastic such as a polycarbonate, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and/or polyurethane (TPU) (aliphatic) ...”; col. 6, ll. 1-16) stacked in ordered layers (Figs. 5-7), the extruded polymer films including a polymer matrix material (col. 6, ll. 1-16) and varying concentrations of at least one nonlinear optical additive (“additives may take the form of light-scattering particles 20 embedded in one or more of the core structures… concentration, refractive index, and/or type of light-scattering particles 20 varies among at least two of the core structures”; col. 7, ll. 12-60) that exhibits nonlinear optical effects, wherein only one polymer matrix material is used to form the plurality of films (“additives may take the form of light-scattering particles 20 embedded in one or more of the core structures. In various exemplary embodiments of the invention, the size, concentration, refractive index, and/or type of light-scattering particles 20 varies among at least two of the core structures” & “waveguide materials from which the waveguide device 10 is made may include or consist essentially of one or more polymeric materials”; col. 22, ll. 47-65) such that the multilayered gradient optical element has a gradient in at least one optical property that is defined by a gradient in concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive (“light-scattering particles may … particles including or consisting essentially of inorganic materials such as BaSO4 or TiO2”) in the polymer film layers of the thermoformed, consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films with adjacent polymer film layers having progressively different properties (col. 8, ln. 43-col. 9, ln. 45 & col. 23, ln. 62-col. 21, ln. 25), wherein the concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive in the plurality of polymer film layers decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films (Figs. 2; col. 8, ln. 43-col. 9, ln. 45) and wherein the consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films are thermoformed into a lens or optical flat (Fig. 1, 3, 5-7, etc.; col. 18, ll. 41-61) to define the gradient in the at least one optical property, wherein the varying concentrations of the at least one nonlinear optical additive are blended in the same polymer matrix material to form all the polymer films in the multilayered gradient optical element (col. 7, ll. 34-60 & col. 23, ln. 62-col. 21, ln. 25), and wherein the nonlinear optical additive comprises an organic or inorganic dye (BaSO4; col. 23, ln. 62-col. 21, ln. 25).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 17-27, 29-31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. No. 7,646,959 to Sato et al. (hereinafter Sato) in view of US Pat. No. 7,929,816 to Meir et al. (hereinafter Meir), US Pat. No. 9,541,678 to Durant et al. (hereinafter Durant), as evidenced by “A comparative study on the nonlinear optical properties of diphenyl ether and diphenyl sulfide compounds” to Zhao et al. (hereinafter Zhao) and the product sheet for “Diphenyl sulfide” at www.molnova.com (hereinafter Molnova).
Regarding claims 17 and 31, Sato discloses a multilayered gradient optical element (plastic optical fiber 12, Figs. 4-5), comprising: a thermoformed consolidated plurality of extruded polymer elements stacked in ordered layers(col. 13, ln. 41-col. 24, ln. 12), the extruded polymer elements including a polymer matrix material (col. 13, ln. 41-col. 24, ln. 12) and varying concentrations of at least one nonlinear optical additive (refractive index controlling agent embodied as diphenyl sulfide, col. 13, ln. 41-col. 24, ln. 12 & col. 27, ll. 13-40) that exhibits nonlinear optical effects (see Abstract of evidentiary reference Zhao) wherein only one polymer matric material is used to form the plurality of elements (e.g. col. 13, ll. 41-65) such that the multilayered gradient optical element has a gradient in at least one optical property that is defined by a gradient in concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive thermoformed consolidated plurality of extruded polymer elements with adjacent polymer film layers having progressively different properties (“To apply the refractive index distribution to the first member 13, in addition to the above-described method, there is a method that a refractive index controlling agent is added to the polymerizable composition for each of the layers 51 to 54 at different amount. In this method, the amount of the refractive index controlling agent increases from the layer positioned at the periphery of the core toward the layer positioned at the center of the core. Accordingly, the core whose refractive index is increased from the periphery toward the center is formed”; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40), wherein the concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive in the plurality of films decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the multilayered gradient optical element to define the gradient in the at least one optical property (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40), and wherein the varying concentrations of the at least one nonlinear optical additive are blended in the same polymer matrix material (“the first polymerizable compound is a deuteriated 2,2,2-trifluoroethyl methacrylate (3FMd7) whose polymer has a refractive index of 1.41, and the second polymerizable compound is a deuteriated pentafluorophenyl methacrylate (PFPMAd5) whose polymer has a refractive index of 1.49” and “since each layer is formed from the polymerizable composition including same polymerizable compounds as those in other polymerizable compositions for other layers, affinities of interfaces of two layers can be improved”; col. 13, ln. 13-col. 24, ln. 12 & col. 8, ln. 53-col. 9, ln. 30) to form all the polymer films in the multilayered element (“a polymerizable composition and additives are poured into a hollow part of a pipe 28, and the pipe 28 is rotated around the center of a cross-section circle as a rotational axis for polymerization (rotation polymerization method). By repeating the rotation polymerization method, first to nth layers (n is an integer at least three) are sequentially stacked from an internal surface toward center of the pipe 28”; col. 7, ln. 62-col. 8, ln. 3).
The diphenyl sulfide additive taught by Sato is comprises an organic or inorganic dye (see “Description” in Molnova describing diphnyl sulfide as a dye intermediate).
Durant discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: extruded polymer films.
Durant discloses a thermoformed, consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films (“a multi-layer absorber 10′ according to the present teachings that includes a proximal layer 12′ and a distal layer 14′” & “the filler is blended with the polymer, polymeric sheets can be formed by various methods including extrusion, calendering, casting or pressing. A multilayer sheet according to the above teachings can then be formed by bonding individual sheet layers using any appropriate adhesive. In some embodiments, a multi-layer sheet according to the above teachings can be formed in a single process, such as coextrusion and co-curing of a plurality of polymeric sheets.”, Fig. 4; col. 8, ll. 52-67 & col. 10, ll. 9-23), the extruded polymer films including a polymer matrix material (“each of the proximal and the distal layers is formed of a polymeric material”; col. 6, ll. 35-39 & Claim 1) and varying concentrations of at least one optical additive that exhibits optical effects (“a concentration of the additives in the proximal layer is greater than a concentration of the additives in the distal layer”; Claim 17), wherein only one polymer matrix material is used to form the plurality of films such that the multilayered gradient optical element (Claims 9-10) has a gradient in at least one optical property that is defined by a gradient in concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive in the thermoformed, consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films, wherein the concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive in the plurality of films decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the multilayered gradient optical element to define the gradient in the at least one optical property (e.g. Fig. 4), wherein the varying concentrations of the at least one nonlinear optical additive are blended in the same polymer matrix material to form all the polymer films in the multilayered gradient optical element (“the filler is blended with the polymer, polymeric sheets can be formed by various methods including extrusion, calendering, casting or pressing. A multilayer sheet according to the above teachings can then be formed by bonding individual sheet layers using any appropriate adhesive. In some embodiments, a multi-layer sheet according to the above teachings can be formed in a single process, such as coextrusion and co-curing of a plurality of polymeric sheets.”, Fig. 4; col. 8, ll. 52-67 & col. 10, ll. 9-23)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a multi-layer film absorber as taught by Durant with the system as disclosed by Sato. The motivation would have been to provide form an optical absorber exhibiting controlled reflectance and transmission coefficients (col. 1, ll. 8-17).
Sato discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films multilayered gradient optical element and wherein the consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films are thermoformed into a lens or optical flat.
Meir discloses consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films multilayered gradient optical element and wherein the consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films are thermoformed into a lens or optical flat (col. 7, ll. 25-60 & col. 18, ll. 33-61).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to a thermoformed lens or optical flat of a multilayered gradient optical element as taught by Meir with the system as disclosed by Sato. The motivation would have been to provide a smooth profile (col. 18, ll. 33-61).
Regarding claim 18, Sato discloses the plane extends transverse to a thickness of the multilayered element to define the gradient in optical properties (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40).
Regarding claims 19 and 27, Sato discloses the optical properties comprises at least one of absorption, reflection, refraction (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40), transmission, polarization, and/or scattering.
Regarding claim 20, Sato discloses the claimed invention as cited above though does not explicitly disclose: the plurality of films are consolidated by stacking films and laminating the films under pressure and/or vacuum to obtain a flat multilayered sheet.
Aida discloses the plurality of films are consolidated by stacking films and laminating the films under pressure and/or vacuum to obtain a flat multilayered sheet (“From the viewpoint of increasing NA and reducing bending loss, it is preferable to use a monomer having a molecular weight of 10,000 or less having a benzene ring, bromine and sulfur. For example… diphenyl sulfide… [t]he addition method is achieved by adding a powder or liquid of a refractive index adjusting agent to the thermoplastic resin A that becomes a core during melt extrusion in accordance with a desired refractive index”).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a flat waveguide as taught by Aida with the system as disclosed by Sato. The motivation would have been to provide a ubiquitous waveguide design in optical communication systems.
Regarding claim 21, Sato discloses the films are stacked in ordered layers to form a hierarchical multilayered gradient material; and wherein adjacent films are selected to exhibit progressively different optical properties (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40).
Regarding claim 22, Sato discloses the at least one nonlinear optical additive is substantially non- migratory upon consolidation of the films to provide the layers of the material with finite optical additive concentrations defined by the concentrations of the at least one optical additive in the films prior to consolidation (col. 13, ln. 41-col. 24, ln. 12 & col. 27, ll. 13-40). This language is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation on the final multilayered gradient optical element. The process by which a final concentration results does not differentiate the final product over prior art products anticipating the structural limitations on the additive concentration.
Regarding claim 23, Sato discloses each layer has a thickness of from about 5 nm to about 1,000 nm (“the outer diameter D1 of the core 65 was 125µm” & “each layer can be adjusted to have a thickness same or close to other layers”).
Regarding claim 24, Sato discloses from 5 to about 100,000 films are consolidated (“By repeating the rotation polymerization method, first to nth layers (n is an integer at least three) are sequentially stacked from an internal surface toward center of the pipe 28”; col. 7, ln. 62-col. 8, ln. 3). The disclosed range has been disclosed with sufficient specificity for anticipation. There is no criticality to the claimed number of consolidated films and no evidence that the apparatus differs substantively across the range. The number of films within the core radius may have added complexity and cost to the manufacturing system, though would have provided more finely graded differences in optical properties as designed and operated in Sato.
Regarding claim 25, Sato discloses the extruded polymer films include a polymer component and the polymer component-is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene naphthalate, an isomer thereof, a polyalkylene terephthalate, a polyimide, a polyetherimide, a styrenic polymer, a polycarbonate, a poly(meth)acrylate, a cellulose derivative, aSerial No. 15/816,433 Page 8 polyalkylene polymer, a fluorinated polymer, a chlorinated polymer, a polysulfone, a polyethersulfone, polyacrylonitrile, a polyamide, polyvinylacetate, a polyether-amide, a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, a styrene-ethylene copolymer, poly(ethylene-1,4- cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate), polyvinylidene difluoride, an acrylic rubber, isoprene, isobutylene-isoprene, butadiene rubber, butadiene-styrene-vinyl pyridine, butyl rubber, polyethylene, chloroprene, epichlorohydrin rubber, ethylene-propylene, ethylene-propylene-diene, nitrile-butadiene, polyisoprene, silicon rubber, styrene- butadiene, urethane rubber, and polyoxyethylene, polyoxypropylene, and tetrafluoroethylene hexafluoropropylene vinylidene (THV), aromatic polyesters, aromatic polyamides, ethylene norbornene copolymers and blends thereof (“it is possible to use polycarbonate (PC)”; col. 23, ll. 30-col. 24, ln. 5).
Regarding claim 26, Sato discloses the matrix polymer material comprises a polycarbonate (“it is possible to use polycarbonate (PC)”; col. 23, ll. 30-col. 24, ln. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Sato discloses having at least one of an axial or radial gradient of optical properties (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40).
Regarding claim 30, Sato discloses each of the polymer films containing the at least one nonlinear optical additive abutting another of the polymer films including the at least one nonlinear optical additive (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40).
Regarding claims 33 and 35, Sato discloses wherein every individual layer of each polymer film includes the at least one nonlinear optical additive (Figs. 4-5; col. 13, ln. 30-39 & col. 27, ll. 13-40).
Claims 17-27, 29-31, 33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. 7,002,754 to Baer et al. (hereinafter Baer ‘754; cited by Applicant) in view of US Pat. No. 8,524,348 to Shi et al. (hereinafter Shi) and US Pat. No. 6,057,406 to Pojman et al. (hereinafter Pojman). Baer properly incorporates U.S. Pat. No. 6,582,807 to Baer et al. (hereinafter Baer ‘807).
Regarding claims 17, Baer ‘754 teaches a multilayered gradient optical element (Fig. 16), comprising: a thermoformed consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13), the extruded polymer films including a polymer matrix material (component (a))and varying concentrations of at least one optical additive (component (b) is an optical additive to component (a); further, see description of polymers described in incorporated US 6,582,807: “polymeric composite material" as used in the present application denotes a combination of a polymeric material with at least one more material dispersed therein” to achieve an analogous optical effect), such that the sheet has a gradient in at least one optical property (refractive index; col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13), wherein the concentration of the at least one optical additive in the plurality of films decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the multilayered element without increasing to define the gradient (see chart of edge distance vs. refractive index in Fig. 16), and the varying concentrations of the at least one nonlinear optical additive are blended in the same polymer matrix material to form all the polymer films in the multilayered gradient optical element (“(a) and (a.sub.i) can be the same or different thermoplastic materials. Likewise, (b) and (b.sub.i) can be the same or different thermoplastic materials. Further, components (a) and (b) may be the same materials chemically, as long as they can form distinct layers exhibiting different refractive indexes, by virtue of secondary physical differences, such as conformational differences of the polymeric structure, differences resulting from different processing conditions such as orientation, or molecular weight differences” (col. 7, ll. 27-54), and consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films and wherein the consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films are thermoformed into a lens or optical flat (col. 6, ll. 22-55).
PNG
media_image1.png
152
57
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baer ‘807 teaches a multilayered gradient optical element (Figs. 1-2; abstract), comprising: a thermoformed multilayered polymer material (Figs. 1-2; abstract) comprising a consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13) having varying concentrations (col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) of at least one nonlinear optical additive (nonlinear dye; col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) that exhibits nonlinear optical effects (“a dye with a nonlinear optical response that includes an absorbance that can increase with fluence (intensity) is particularly useful”; col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) such that the material has a gradient (transition from an undoped concentration to doped concentration is a stepped gradient) in at least one optical property that is defined by a gradient in concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive in the thermoformed multilayered polymer material (col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) wherein the concentration of the at least one optical additive in the plurality of films decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the multilayered element to define the gradient in the at least one optical property (see annotated Fig. 2 below).
Baer ‘807 does not explicitly disclose whether the upper or lower layer depicted in the 2-layer embodiment of Fig. 2 has a lower or higher concentration of the nonlinear dye, though it is necessarily true that there is an embodiment in which one concentration is higher than the other. Therefore, in the 2-layer embodiment, the concentration gradient decreases in either the +z or –z direction relative to the annotated drawing shown below. The “plane normal to an outer surface is, for example, the x-z plane as it is normal to the x-y plane. Thus the concentration decreases in the x-z plane as it decreases along an axis +z or –z.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The proposed combination teaches the claimed “wherein only one polymer matrix is used to form the plurality of films” as the proposed modification uses the component (a) and dyes added in varying concentration, as opposed to polymer component (b).
In the 9/07/2021 Response, Applicant argues that Baer ‘807 does not teach a polymer material having a gradient of an optical property defined by a gradient in the concentration of nonlinear optical additive. While there is no specific argument against the undyed to dyed to undyed gradient, there is an implication that the claim language “gradient” continues to be a point of disagreement during prosecution. As stated above, Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a step-up and/or step-down in concentration to be a gradient. While this gradient is not smooth and could be made to be more gradual, the original disclosure does not narrowly define the term “gradient” to include a particular degree of smoothness of the transition from one concentration to another.
Baer ‘754 teaches the nonlinear optical additive is an organic or inorganic dye, pigment, and/or nanomaterial (“components comprising the layers in accordance with the present invention can include organic or inorganic materials designed to increase or decrease the refractive index of the component, including nanoparticulate materials”; col. 6, ll. 55-60).
Regardless of whether the step-up gradient of dye concentration disclosed by Baer ‘807 is considered a “gradient” as intended, a gradient of nonlinear additives would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Shi discloses a gradient of nonlinear additive concentrations in excess of two concentrations (col. 8, ln. 35-col. 9, ln. 5) in polymer film layers of the thermoformed, consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films with adjacent polymer films having progressively different properties (col. 8, ln. 35-col. 9, ln. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide further increments of a nonlinear gradient as taught by Shi with the system as disclosed by Baer. The motivation would have been to homogenize the optical effect as a function of depth into a material. For absorptive nonlinear effects, the absorption on the surface would decrease the light intensity as it penetrates into the material and thus to make the optical effect uniform, the concentration can be made to increase in order to maintain the optical response through the material (col. 5, ll. 15-33).
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose only one polymer matrix material. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as stated above, and maintains that the proposed modifications of Baer’s teaching suggest only one polymer matrix. Regardless of the disagreement, providing only one polymer matrix material and optical additives of varying concentration would have been obvious to an artisan.
Pojman discloses functionally gradient polymeric materials formed by ascending polymerization fronts in which additive are varied to form the gradient (abstract & col. 3, ln. 65-col. 4, ln. 16).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide only one polymer matrix and a graded additive material as taught by Pojman with the system as disclosed by Baer. The motivation would have been to provide a relatively speedy and controllable means of grading layers functionally within an optical element (col. 1, ln. 15-col. 2, ln. 13).
Regarding claim 18, Baer ‘754 teaches wherein the plane extends transverse to a thickness of the multilayered element to define the gradient properties (see annotates Fig. 16 above).
Regarding claim 19, Baer ‘754 teaches the optical properties comprises at least one of absorption, reflection, refraction (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13), transmission, polarization, and/or scattering.
Regarding claim 20, Baer ‘754 teaches the plurality of films are consolidated by stacking films and laminating the films under pressure and/or vacuum to obtain a flat multilayered sheet (“co-extrusion”, “the refractive index of the composite can be varied mechanically via pressure, tension, compression or shear stresses”; col. 8, ln. 63-col. 9, ln. 2).
Regarding claim 21, Baer ‘754 teaches the films are stacked in ordered layers to form a hierarchical multilayered gradient material; and wherein adjacent films are selected to exhibit progressively different optical properties (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13).
Regarding claim 22, Baer ‘754 teaches the at least one nonlinear optical additive is substantially non-migratory upon consolidation of the films to provide the layers of the material with finite optical additive concentrations defined by the concentrations of the at least one optical additive in the films prior to consolidation (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13). As the optical effect is presumed operable and migration of the additive would impair operability of the optical elements in Baer, the operability of the optical elements requires “substantially non-migratory” additives.
Regarding claim 23, Baer ‘754 teaches each layer has a thickness of from about 5 nm to about 1,000 nm (col. 5, ln. 7-26).
Regarding claim 24, Baer ‘754 teaches from 5 to about 100,000 films are consolidated (col. 5, ll. 27-44).
Regarding claim 25, Baer ‘754 teaches the extruded polymer films include a polymer component and the polymer component-is selected from the group consisting of polyethylene naphthalate, an isomer thereof, a polyalkylene terephthalate, a polyimide, a polyetherimide, a styrenic polymer, a polycarbonate, a poly(meth)acrylate, a cellulose derivative, a polyalkylene polymer, a fluorinated polymer, a chlorinated polymer, a polysulfone, a polyethersulfone, polyacrylonitrile, a polyamide, polyvinylacetate, a polyether-amide, a styrene-acrylonitrile copolymer, a styrene-ethylene copolymer, poly(ethylene-1,4- cyclohexylenedimethylene terephthalate), polyvinylidene difluoride, an acrylic rubber, isoprene, isobutylene-isoprene, butadiene rubber, butadiene-styrene-vinyl pyridine, butyl rubber, polyethylene, chloroprene, epichlorohydrin rubber, ethylene-propylene, ethylene-propylene-diene, nitrile-butadiene, polyisoprene, silicon rubber, styrene- butadiene, urethane rubber, and polyoxyethylene, polyoxypropylene, and tetrafluoroethylene hexafluoropropylene vinylidene (THV), aromatic polyesters, aromatic polyamides, ethylene norbornene copolymers and blends thereof (PC and PMMA, Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 26, Baer ‘754 teaches the matrix polymer material comprises a polycarbonate (Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 27, Baer ‘754 teaches the nonlinear optical effects comprising at least one of absorption, reflection, refraction, transmission, polarization, and/or scattering (Baer ‘807: col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31; Shi: col. 8, ln. 35-col. 9, ln. 5).
Regarding claim 29, Baer ‘754 teaches at least one of an axial or radial gradient of optical properties (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13).
Regarding claim 30, Shi teaches each of the polymer films containing the at least one nonlinear optical additive abutting another of the polymer films including the at least one nonlinear optical additive (Shi: col. 8, ln. 35-col. 9, ln. 5)).
Regarding claims 31, Baer ‘754 teaches a multilayered gradient optical element (Fig. 16), comprising: a thermoformed multilayered polymer material (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13) comprising a consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13) having varying concentrations of at least one optical additive (component (b) is an optical additive to component (a); further, see description of polymers described in incorporated US 6,582,807: “polymeric composite material" as used in the present application denotes a combination of a polymeric material with at least one more material dispersed therein” to achieve an analogous optical effect) such that the material has a gradient in at least one optical property (refractive index; col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13), wherein the concentration of the at least one optical additive in the plurality of films decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the multilayered element without increasing to define the gradient (see chart of edge distance vs. refractive index in Fig. 16).
PNG
media_image1.png
152
57
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Baer ‘807 teaches a multilayered gradient optical element (Figs. 1-2; abstract), comprising: a thermoformed multilayered polymer material (Figs. 1-2; abstract) comprising a consolidated plurality of extruded polymer films (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13) having varying concentrations (col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) of at least one nonlinear optical additive (nonlinear dye; col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) that exhibits nonlinear optical effects (“a dye with a nonlinear optical response that includes an absorbance that can increase with fluence (intensity) is particularly useful”; col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) such that the material has a gradient (transition from an undoped concentration to doped concentration is a stepped gradient) in at least one optical property that is defined by a gradient in concentration of the at least one nonlinear optical additive in the thermoformed multilayered polymer material (col. 3, ln. 35-col. 4, ln. 31) wherein the concentration of the at least one optical additive in the plurality of films decreases in a plane normal to an outer surface of the multilayered element to define the gradient in the at least one optical property (see annotated Fig. 2 below); wherein the varying concentrations of the at least one optical additive are blended in the same polymer matrix material to form all the polymer films (“In accordance with the present invention, (a) and (a.sub.i) can be the same or different thermoplastic materials. Likewise, (b) and (b.sub.i) can be the same or different thermoplastic materials. Further, components (a) and (b) may be the same materials chemically, as long as they can form distinct layers exhibiting different refractive indexes, by virtue of secondary physical differences, such as conformational differences of the polymeric structure, differences resulting from different processing conditions such as orientation, or molecular weight differences”; col. 7, ll. 44-53).
Baer ‘807 does not explicitly disclose whether the upper or lower layer depicted in the 2-layer embodiment of Fig. 2 has a lower or higher concentration of the nonlinear dye, though it is necessarily true that there is an embodiment in which one concentration is higher than the other. Therefore, in the 2-layer embodiment, the concentration gradient decreases in either the +z or –z direction relative to the annotated drawing shown below. The “plane normal to an outer surface is, for example, the x-z plane as it is normal to the x-y plane. Thus the concentration decreases in the x-z plane as it decreases along an axis +z or –z.
PNG
media_image2.png
253
378
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the 9/07/2021 Response, Applicant argues that Baer ‘807 does not teach a polymer material having a gradient of an optical property defined by a gradient in the concentration of nonlinear optical additive. While there is no specific argument against the undyed to dyed to undyed gradient, there is an implication that the claim language “gradient” continues to be a point of disagreement during prosecution. As stated above, Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a step-up and/or step-down in concentration to be a gradient. While this gradient is not smooth and could be made to be more gradual, the original disclosure does not narrowly define the term “gradient” to include a particular degree of smoothness of the transition from one concentration to another.
Baer ‘754 teaches the nonlinear optical additive is an organic or inorganic dye, pigment, and/or nanomaterial (“components comprising the layers in accordance with the present invention can include organic or inorganic materials designed to increase or decrease the refractive index of the component, including nanoparticulate materials”; col. 6, ll. 55-60).
Regardless of whether the step-up gradient of dye concentration disclosed by Baer ‘807 is considered a “gradient” as intended, a gradient of nonlinear additives would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Shi discloses a gradient of nonlinear additive concentrations in excess of two concentrations (col. 8, ln. 35-col. 9, ln. 5).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide further increments of a nonlinear gradient as taught by Shi with the system as disclosed by Baer. The motivation would have been to homogenize the optical effect as a function of depth into a material. For absorptive nonlinear effects, the absorption on the surface would decrease the light intensity as it penetrates into the material and thus to make the optical effect uniform, the concentration can be made to increase in order to maintain the optical response through the material (col. 5, ll. 15-33).
Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose only one polymer matrix material. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as stated above, and maintains that the proposed modifications of Baer’s teaching suggest only one polymer matrix. Regardless of the disagreement, providing only one polymer matrix material and optical additives of varying concentration would have been obvious to an artisan.
Pojman discloses functionally gradient polymeric materials formed by ascending polymerization fronts in which additive are varied to form the gradient (abstract & col. 3, ln. 65-col. 4, ln. 16).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide only one polymer matrix and a graded additive material as taught by Pojman with the system as disclosed by Baer. The motivation would have been to provide a relatively speedy and controllable means of grading layers functionally within an optical element (col. 1, ln. 15-col. 2, ln. 13).
Regarding claims 33 and 35, Baer ‘754teaches wherein every individual layer of each polymer film includes the at least one additive (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13). As two adjacent layers disclosed by Baer anticipate the claimed plurality of layers then it can be said that Baer’s disclosure anticipates “every individual layer of each polymer film includes the at least one additive”. Further the refractive index range and increment of refractive index changes implicitly requires there to be at least two layers each having a concentration of additive.
Baer ’807 teaches a nonlinear additive (col. 9, ln. 38-col. 10, ln. 61 & col. 11, ln. 58-col. 12, ln. 13)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims present an apparatus inherently having “interfaces in between for adjacent polymer film layers to have progressively different properties” and “there would need to be separate polymer films forming said layers”. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the references cited as prior art evidence thermal and lamination processes that change the degree to which an interface is defined.
On pages 15-16 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that Meir does not “involve either consolidation of extruded polymer films nor thermoforming”. As noted in the history of prosecution, these phrases are understood to be product-by-process limitations that do not structurally distinguish the claim over prior art apparatuses that are structurally identical though formed by different means. While Applicant cites a dictionary definition of thermoforming including “shaping it in a mold”, the requirement is merely a process of forming the apparatus and does not distinguish the claimed apparatus structurally over prior art. The flatness of the final product is not inconsistent with “shaping it in a mould”, for example.
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection is maintained as the remarks reinforce ongoing disagreement as to the structural distinctions imposed by functional language in the claim.
On page 21 of the Remarks, Applicant argues against Sato discloses use of a same polymer matrix. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the same polymerizable constituent is used as a control or static factor in the optical material design, and an additional constituent is added thereto. Additionally Sato discloses adding the refractive index controlling agent to layers in various concentrations to alter the refractive index (see col. 30, ll. 30-39) as an independent variable and use of same polymerizable compounds are preferred due to improvements to interface affinities and scattering properties (see col. 13, ll. 14-29).
Arguments on pages 23-24 are directed to singling out limitations that single references fail to disclose. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
On page 24 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, in part, that Meir fails to disclose thermoforming as it lacks mention of a die or mold to change the shape. Examiner’s reasons for maintaining the rejection have been discussed above regarding functional language.
On page 25, Applicant argues that Sato would not be modified to be thermoformed into a lens, optical flat, or crescent shape. Examiner agrees that Sato would not be obvious to modify into an optical flat as the shape would admittedly frustrate the operation of the design. However, it is well known in the art that fibers may take lens and crescent shapes and these shapes would not frustrate the basis of obviousness above.
On pages 31-33 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “those skilled in the art would find that there is no basis for finding that Baer ‘754 teaches the use of an optical additive”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The grounds for rejection relying on the teachings of Baer ‘754 would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as evidencing use of a polymeric compound as a control to which an optically functional element is introduced as independent variable. Baer ‘754 relies on a second polymer compound as the independent variable to which refractive index serves as the dependent variable in the optical experimentation and design. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is based on the obviousness of a person having ordinary skill in the art providing an alternative independent variable (namely a non-linear element) to explore and design an alternative dependent variable (e.g. absorption). The rejections do not rely on direct substitution of a second polymer in Baer ‘754 with a nonlinear element from other inventions of prior art. Baer ‘754 sis relied upon to evidence elements of the claim requiring gradual concentration differences and gradients of optical properties, among other claim limitations, and is not relied upon to evidence the whole of the claimed polymeric composition.
On page 35 of the Remarks, Applicant repeats an argument that is substantially the same as those discussed above with reference to additional prior art references. Examiner maintains that the thermoformed shape of the final product does not require a die or mold in manufacture to anticipate the claimed shape.
On pages 38-39 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that there is no “relevancy” of the obviousness statement with reference to the proposed modification in view of Pojman’s teachings. Pojman’s experimental method explicitly states that polymerization occurs gradually by introducing additional amount of dye to provide a functionally graded optical material. The methodology is directed at providing speedy and controlled means of optically varying a material according to Pojman. As stated above, the basis of the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection in view of Baer ‘754 stems from a person having ordinary skill in the art being motivated to provide a functionally graded optical material with some degree of control and some degree of variable independence. Pojman is explicitly directed to varying compositions spatially in a controlled manner and boasts the disclosed methodology is achievement in velocity and reaction time (see col. 1-2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J STANFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-3337. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM PST 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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 Pat