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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The cancelation of claims 9 and 22 has overcome the 35 USC 112(d) rejection. Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 or a maximum intensity at wavelengths in the range of 400-2000 nm. Neither of these ranges support the claimed range in that the first range does not include the claimed range of greater than 400 to 500 nm and the second range has an upper limit of 2000 nm and the claimed range does not include an upper value.
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 in addition to the claimed 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.
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 of the copolymer. 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 taught vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives are the vinyl alcohol or ethylene moieties of the polymer and that the vinyl alcohol or ethylene moieties of the polymer bond to the surfaces of the quantum dots, 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.
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 spectrum of light having a maximum intensity at wavelengths greater than 2000 nm. The citation of In re Wertheim does not help applicants arguments since as in that case, the claimed range has no upper limit, but the argued 400-2000 nm range taught in the specification does. The rejection is maintained.
The arguments with respect to the rejections over claim 6 is not convincing. Applicants argues paragraph [0037] expressly identifies acrylic resin, polycarbonate, polyester, PET, polyethylene, polypropylene, PVC, PVDF, ethylene vinyl alcohol copolymers and related polymer systems. Paragraph [0037] does not teach what is argued. This paragraph only discusses ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer copolymers. Thus this paragraph 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.
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 argument that “sacrificial oxygen-scavenging or antioxidant additives” are well understood in the art does not overcome the rejection since the only sacrificial oxygen-scavenging additives disclosed are antioxidants. The fact one of ordinary skill in the art may have found it obvious that other sacrificial additives for slowing oxygen ingress, besides antioxidant and not disclosed in the specification does not meet the written description requirement of the specification under 35 USC 112(a). 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 [0037] does not teach the claimed at least one exterior layer contains an ethylene vinyl acetate polymer. This paragraph only discusses ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer copolymers. The disclosed film having at least one exterior layer contains an ethylene vinyl acetate polymer does not include the claimed 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 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 paragraph 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. Applicants argues that the claims merely require that each outer layer independently satisfy the recited thresholds. This argument is not convincing since the specification does not teach that each outer layer independently satisfy the recited thresholds, in that each layer only needs to meet the property of claim 24 or the property of claim 25, argued. The specification teaches layer 3 has both the OTR value range of claim 24 and the WVTR values of claim 25. The fact that the outer layers of the structure taught in paragraph [0027] haves the same reference number indicates that the outer layers are the same and thus have the same composition and properties. There is no indication in the specification that the upper outer layer 3 and the lower outer layer 3 can be different so long as each layer has both an OTR value which falls within that of claim 24 and a WVTR value that falls within the range of claim 25, as argued. The new matter rejection is maintained.
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 26 are not convincing since applicant have not presented any evidence that the taught quantum dots are chemically bonded to the polymer matrix via ethylene or vinyl alcohol moieties of the copolymer. The argued vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives are different from the claimed “the ethylene or vinyl alcohol moieties”. For this phrase to have proper antecedent basis, the moieties must be part of the copolymer and not the vinyl alcohol or ethylene derivatives on the surface of the quantum dots. 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 teachings of 100% does not covey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicants had possession of values less than 100%. 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. This single example does not support the claimed multilayered films and the teachings in the specification of extruding a single layer film at about 200oC does not support extruding multilayered films at the temperature. The rejection is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 12, 21 and 23 are allowed.
These claims are allowable for the reasons given in the previous action.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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
5/21/26
Prosecution Insights