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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the independent claim 1 to add new issues which require additional search consideration. The corresponding new rejections are shown below.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2,4, 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai (US 20170329060 A1) in view of Kliesch et al (JP 2005289065 A) in further view of Yamaguchi et al (US 20160332424 A1) in further view of Yoo et al (US 20130164513 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tai discloses a light reflective resin film (A multilayer polymeric reflector) comprising: a reflective stack (multilayer optical films); a temperature of 280°C (200° C. or higher; para [0044] and [0045]); a temperature of 240°C (200° C. or higher; para [0044] and [0045]). Tai fails to explicitly disclose a first resin layer and a second resin layer repeatedly and alternately; resistance value; resistance adjuster including an alkali metal salt or an alkaline earth metal salt; a melting resistance; a copper plate; a molten film state; and a voltage.
Kliesch teaches a melting resistance 2,000 MΩ or less (ex: low melting resistance; The average melt resistance value of the thermoplastic resin can be achieved by adjusting the amounts of the polyester), a molten film state (molten sheet); and applying of 50 V (ex: a voltage of 100 V was applied; The voltage was changed depending on the thickness of the film) to the copper plate (ex: conductive film); resistance value (ex: resistance value of the thermoplastic resin).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Tai’s multilayer polymeric reflector with Kliesch’s conductive film because this will help improve optical characteristics.
Tai and Kliesch fail to disclose a first resin layer and a second resin layer repeatedly and alternately; resistance adjuster including an alkali metal salt or an alkaline earth metal salt.
Yamaguchi teaches a first resin layer (3); a second resin layer (4); repeatedly and alternately (para [0040]); resistance adjuster including an alkali metal salt or an alkaline earth metal salt (para [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Yamaguchi’s alkali metal salt or an alkaline earth metal salt with Tai and Kliesch multilayer optical films because these will improve optical reliability and increase efficiency.
Tai, Kliesch, and Yamaguchi fail to explicitly disclose a weight average molecular weight of 30,000 to 100,000 and a weight average molecular weight of 100,000 or more.
Yoo teaches a weight average molecular weight (para [0028]) of 30,000 to 100,000 (para [0028]); average molecular weight of 100,000 or more (para [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Tai as modified multilayer polymeric reflector with weight average molecular weight as taught by Yoo because this will give better optical properties, a precise control over the refractive index of each layer.
Furthermore, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (I) (A).
Regarding claim 2, Tai in view of Kliesch and Yamaguchi disclose the light reflective resin film (A multilayer polymeric reflector), wherein the reflective stack (multilayer optical films) comprises first resin layers (3) and second resin layers (4) repeatedly and alternately laminated (Abstract: a plurality of second optical layers disposed in a repeating sequence with the plurality of first optical layers), and the first resin layer (3) has a higher refractive index (PET as the high refractive index material (for the first optical layers)) than the refractive index (PMMA, a low refractive index material (for the second optical layers)) of the second resin layer (4).
The motivation for doing this would be the same as the one stated above.
Regarding claim 4, Tai in view of Kliesch and Yamaguchi disclose the light reflective resin film (A multilayer polymeric reflector), wherein each of the first resin layer (first optical layers) and the second resin layer (second optical layer) has a melting resistance (melting resistance) of 50 to 500 MΩ (ex: melting resistance value).
The motivation for doing this would be the same as the one stated above.
Regarding claim 6, Tai in view of Kliesch and Yamaguchi disclose the light reflective resin film (A multilayer polymeric reflector), wherein the first resin layer (3) includes polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and the second resin layer (4) includes polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA).
The motivation for doing this would be the same as the one stated above.
Regarding claim 8, Tai in view of Kliesch and Yamaguchi disclose the light reflective resin film (A multilayer polymeric reflector), further comprising a first protective layer (protective boundary layers) and a second protective layer (protective boundary layers) respectively laminated (uniformly spread the layers of the combined multilayer stack transversely; paragraph [0070]) on an upper surface and a lower surface (lower and upper surfaces) of the reflective stack (multilayer optical films).
The motivation for doing this would be the same as the one stated above.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tai in view of Kliesch et al and Yamaguchi et al and in further view of Lee et al (KR 20200087007 A).
Regarding claim 5, Tai in view of Kliesch discloses the light reflective resin film (A multilayer polymeric reflector), wherein the first resin layer (first optical layers) and the second resin layer (second optical layer). Tai in view of Kliesch fails to explicitly disclose an F-ratio which is defined by Equation 1 below and is in a range of 0.35 to 0.65: [Equation 1](In Equation 1, n1 and n2 are the refractive indices of the first resin layer and the second resin layer, respectively, and d1 and d2 are thicknesses of the first resin layer and the second resin layer, respectively).
Lee teaches an F-ratio (the value of the f-ratio represented by Equation 1 below may be 0.01 to less than 0.5 or more than 0.5 to 0.99, and more specifically, the value of the f-ratio is 0.2 to 0.4 Or 0.6 to 0.8) [Equation 1]
f-ratio = D .sub.1 / (D .sub.1 + D .sub.2 ).
In the above formula, D .sub.1 and D .sub.2 are optical thicknesses of the first resin layer and the second resin layer, respectively, and D .sub.1 =n .sub.1 xd .sub.1 and D .sub.2 =n .sub.2 xd .sub.2 . Here, n .sub.1 and n .sub.2 are refractive indexes of the first resin layer and the second resin layer, and d .sub.1 and d .sub.2 refer to physical thicknesses of the first resin layer and the second resin layer. (paragraphs [0024] to [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lee’s f-ratio value range with the combination of Tai, Kliesch and Yamaguchi multilayer polymeric reflector because this will make it easier to adjust the reflectance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIREILLE SANDRA SADATE-MOUALEU whose telephone number is (571)272-2862. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0730-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/MIREILLE S SADATE-MOUALEU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855