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
This action is in response to applicants’ amendment of 20 November 2025. The amendments to the specification and applicants’ clarification as to the molar fraction of ethylene in the disclosed copolymer have overcome the objections to disclosure. The amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to claims 7 and 8; the 35 USC 112(a)b rejections and the art rejections. The indicated allowability of claims 9 and 22 are withdrawn in view of the amendment to claim 1, where the ethylene molar fraction limitation of claims 9 and 22 was inserted into claim 1. The new rejections over claims 9 and 22 follow.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2, 6-8, 10 and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 teaches the fluorophores emit a spectrum of light having a maximum intensity at wavelengths greater than 400 nm. Paragraph [0032] teaches fluorophores emit a spectrum of light having a maximum intensity at wavelengths greater than 550 nm. This difference in the wavelengths at which the taught and claimed fluorophores have a maximum intensity needs to be corrected.
There is no teaching in the specification that the fluorophore containing extruded polymer film comprises polymers selected from acylates, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polyester, polyvinyl butyral, ethylene vinyl acetate, and combinations of these polymers, as claimed in claim 6. There is also no teaching in the specification of combinations of ethylene vinyl alcohol and acylates, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polyester, polyvinyl butyral, ethylene vinyl acetate, and combinations of these polymers as claimed in claim 6; nor that at least one exterior layer contains an ethylene vinyl acetate polymer as claimed in claim 10. It is noted that paragraphs [0026] and [0027] teach away from fluorophore containing extruded polymer films where the polymer of the film has not been engineered for low OTR and paragraphs [0028] and [0030] teach away from using polycarbonate and ethylene vinyl acetate as the polymer of the claimed fluorophore containing extruded polymer film. Thus claims 6 and 10 include embodiments not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 8 teaches the extruded polymer film has at least one layer that contains stabilizing polymers against light degradation or antioxidants or other sacrificial additives for slowing oxygen ingress. Paragraph [0029] teaches a multilayered optical element structure wherein the outer low WVTR layers may further comprise additives for light stabilization, such as hindered amine light stabilizers, UV absorbers and anti-oxidants. This teaching in paragraph [0029], which is the only disclosure of these additives, does not support the claimed layers, which can be any layer of the claimed optical element. There is no teaching of the claimed other sacrificial additives for slowing oxygen ingress in the specification. Thus claims 7 and 8 include embodiments not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
New claim 24 teaches the outer layers of the optical element having the structure of claim 23 independently has an OTR value of less than 5 cm2/m2/day at 50% relative humidity and 20oC for 1 mil thick film. New claim 25 teaches the outer layers of the optical element having the structure of claim 23 independently has a WVTR value of less than 100 g/m2/day at 90% relative humidity and 40oC for a 1 mil thick film. Paragraph [0027] teaches an optical element having the structure of claim 23 and that the taught outer layers have both an OTR value of less than 5 cm2/m2/day at 50% relative humidity and 20oC for 1 mil thick film and a WVTR value of less than 100 g/m2/day at 90% relative humidity and 40oC for a 1 mil thick film. This paragraph is the only teaching in the specification of an optical element having the structure of claim 23. The teachings in the specification that the outer films have both an OTR value of less than 5 cm2/m2/day at 50% relative humidity and 20oC for 1 mil thick film and a WVTR value of less than 100 g/m2/day at 90% relative humidity and 40oC for a 1 mil thick film does not support the subject matter of claims 24 and 25 where the two outer layers of a three layer extruded polymer film optical element has an OTR value of less than 5 cm2/m2/day at 50% relative humidity and 20oC for 1 mil thick film or a WVTR value of less than 100 g/m2/day at 90% relative humidity and 40oC for a 1 mil thick film and that the OTR value or the WVTR value of each outer film can be different as long as they are within the claimed ranges. Since the outer layers of claims 24 and 25 are not supported by the teachings in the originally filed disclosure, these claims are new matter.
New claim 26 teaches the fluorophores in the extruded polymer film of claim 1 are quantum dots chemically bonded to the polymer matrix via at least one of the ethylene or vinyl alcohol moieties. Paragraph [0026] teaches that in some embodiment of the disclosed optical element, the quantum dots have vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives chemically bonded on to their surfaces to enhance solubility of the quantum dots in the matrix, which is understood to be the extruded polymer that contains the quantum dots, and to further limit oxygen and water ingress. This teaching does not teach that the vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives on to the surfaces of the quantum dots bond to the polymer matrix, as claimed in claim 26. Thus claim 26 is new matter.
New claim 27 teaches the fluorophor containing film of claim 1 retains at least 90% of its initial photoluminescence intensity after 100 hours of continuous exposure at 405 nm excitation at 50oC under ambient atmosphere (< 20% relative humidity). Paragraphs [0026]- [0029] teach the optical elements having the structures of figures 1-4 retains at least 90% of its initial photoluminescence intensity after accelerated aging conditions which are exposure over 2 weeks (more than 336 hours) under blue light at 50oC. The wavelength of the blue light and the atmospheric conditions of the taught accelerated aging conditions are not disclosed in the specification. Paragraph [0030] and figure 5 teach and show that after exposing an extruded film of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer containing about 3 wt% quantum dots to 405 nm excitation at 50oC under ambient atmosphere (< 20% relative humidity) for more than 100 hours there is no degradation of photoluminescence intensity from the initial photoluminescence intensity. Thus this figure shows the film of this example retain 100% of its initial photoluminescence intensity. The specification does not teach or indicate that the conditions of paragraph [0030] are the accelerated aging conditions of paragraphs [0026]- [0029]. The optical element of claim 1 is not limited to the structures of paragraphs [0026]-[0030] and there is no teaching as to the retained percentage of the initial photoluminescence intensity after 100 hours of continuous exposure at 405 nm excitation at 50oC under ambient atmosphere for the structures of paragraphs [0026]- [0029] and figure 5 shows the taught film retain 100% of its initial photoluminescence intensity after 100 hours of continuous exposure at 405 nm excitation at 50oC under ambient atmosphere (< 20% relative humidity). None of the teachings in the specification support new claim 27 and thus claim 27 is new matter.
Finally, the process of new claim 28 is new matter since the claimed process is no supported by the specification. The only optical element produced by the newly claimed process is that of paragraph [0030], which is a extruded single film of ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymer containing quantum dots. This single structure does not support all the structures encompassed by claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9, which depends from claim 1, teach that the polymer film contains at least one layer having an ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer copolymer containing a molar fraction of ethylene within the range of 20-50 wt%. Claim 22, which depends ultimately from claim 1, teaches the ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer copolymer of the film of claims 21 and 1 contains a molar fraction of ethylene within the range of 20-50 wt%. Applicant amended claim 1 to include the limitation that the polymer film contains at least one layer having an ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer copolymer containing a molar fraction of ethylene within the range of 20-50 wt%. This amendment to claim 1 means that claims 9 and 22 no longer further limit or define claim 1, since claim 1 now includes the limitation of claims 9 and 22.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been considered but are not convincing. Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection over claim 2 are not convincing since there is no upper limit taught in claim 2. Thus the argued teachings of a spectrum of light having a maximum intensity in the range of 400-2000 nm does not support the claimed a spectrum of light having a maximum intensity at wavelengths greater than 2000 nm. The rejection is maintained.
The arguments with respect to the rejections over claim 6 is not convincing since the fact that the background of the specification, in paragraph [0003], teaches acylates, polyethylene, and ethylene vinyl acetate can be extruded does not support the claimed optical element comprising an extruded polymer film comprising fluorophors having a quantum yield greater than 50%, at least one of the polymers of claim 6 and at least one layer having at least 1 wt% of an ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer copolymer, wherein the copolymer has a molar fraction of 20-50 mol% ethylene. The argument that the generic use of “polymer” supports the specific polymers of claim 6 are not convincing in view of the fact the specification teaches away from using the claimed polycarbonates and ethylene vinyl acetates and teaches away from using polymers that has not been engineered for low OTR. In addition, the generic teaching of “polymer” would not "reasonably lead" those skilled in the art to any particular species, such as those of claim 6. The rejection is maintained.
Applicants arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 7 and 8 are not convincing. The argued paragraph, which was addressed in the rejection, only teaches the outer low WVTR layers may further comprise additives for light stabilization, such as hindered amine light stabilizers, UV absorbers and anti-oxidants. Claims 7 and 8 do not limit the layer containing the claimed stabilizing polymers against light degradation and antioxidants to the outer low WVTR layers. It teaches “at least one layer” which reads on any layer in the extruded polymer film. IN addition, the argued paragraph does not disclose the claimed other sacrificial additives for slowing oxygen ingress. The rejection of claims 7 and 8 are maintained.
Applicants arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 10 are not convincing since the argued paragraph does not teach the claimed at least one exterior layer contains an ethylene vinyl acetate polymer. In addition, applicants do not address the teachings in paragraph [0030] which teaches away from using ethylene vinyl acetate polymer as an exterior layer. The rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 24 and 25 are not convincing since the paragraph which teaches the OTR and WVTR values for optical elements having the structure of claim 23 is paragraph [0027] which only has outer layer 3 requires this layer to have both the OTR value range of claim 24 and the WVTR values of claim 25. The teachings of this pargraph does not teach that the outer has either the OTR value range of claim 24 or the WVTR values of claim 25, which is what is now claimed. The argued embodiment of paragraph [0028] while meeting the requirements of claim 25 does not have an outer barrier layer meeting the requirements of claim 24. The layer 3 in the embodiment of paragraph [0028] is not an outer layer since it is between layers 4 and 1.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 26 are not convincing since as stated above, the teachings that quantum dots have vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives chemically bonded on to their surfaces to enhance solubility of the quantum dots in the matrix, which is understood to be the extruded polymer that contains the quantum dots, and to further limit oxygen and water ingress does not teach that the vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives on to the surfaces of the quantum dots bond to the polymer matrix. Applicant have not presented any evidence that the taught quantum dots have vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives chemically bonded on to their surfaces bond to the polymer matrix. The rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 27 are not convincing. AS discussed above, the argued examples do not support the claimed ranges. The specification either teaches 100% of its initial photoluminescence intensity after 100 hours of continuous exposure at 405 nm excitation at 50oC under ambient atmosphere (< 20% relative humidity), which does not support the claimed change in initial photoluminescence intensity of 90% up to less than 100% or at least 90% of its initial photoluminescence intensity after accelerated aging conditions which are exposure over 2 weeks (more than 336 hours) under blue light at 50oC, where the wavelength of the blue light is not taught and the atmosphere of the accelerated aging conditions. This does not support the claimed wavelength of 405 nm and the atmosphere of an ambient atmosphere having < 20% relative humidity. The rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 28 are not convincing since the single embedment of paragraph [0030], which has the structure of claim 21 and is the single layer embodiment of claim 1, does not support claimed multilayered embodiments of claim 1, such as that of claims 5 and 23. The rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 21 and 23 are allowed.
Claim 21 is allowable for the reasons given in the previous action.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include the allowable subject matter of claim 9. Thus claim 1, and dependent claims 3-5, 11, 12, and 23 which include all the limitations of claim 1, are allowable for the reasons given in the previous action.
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 C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is (571)272-1371. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/C Melissa Koslow/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
cmk
1/9/26