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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/02/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify the reflective element to include an absorptive filter property because Weber explicitly teaches that the synergistic combination of an absorptive element between two reflective elements results in an increase in optical density and absorption performance that cannot be achieved with either type of element alone or with elements arranged in other combinations. Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to diminish the amount of light available for absorption by combining elements in combination that Weber teaches to be inferior to its unique combination. Consequently, Weber teaches away from modifying either reflective element to create consecutive absorptive or reflective elements by virtue of the modification. Applicant argues the modification would render Weber unsatisfactory or its intended purpose because it would diminish the amount of incident light available and the modification would disrupt the reflective-absorptive-reflective layer patterns that Weber is preferential towards. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that it would not be obvious to modify the reflective element to include an absorptive filter property because Weber explicitly teaches that the synergistic combination of an absorptive element between two reflective elements results in an increase in optical density and absorption performance that cannot be achieved with either type of element alone or with elements arranged in other combinations, Examiner notes that although [0066] teaches the above argument, the second portion of Weber [0066] further teaches that additional enhancements can be achieved by adding additional absorptive or reflective elements, preferably, in an alternating manner.
Regarding applicant’s argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to diminish the amount of light available for absorption by combining elements in combination that Weber teaches to be inferior to its unique combination, and consequently, Weber teaches away from modifying either reflective element to create consecutive absorptive or reflective elements by virtue of the modification, Examiner again cites the second portion of Weber [0066] which teaches that additional enhancements can be achieved by adding additional absorptive or reflective elements. Furthermore, [0121] teaches further configurations including absorptive/reflective/reflective, and reflective/reflective/absorptive, thus Examiner does not interpret Weber to explicitly teach the unique combination without any modification.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the modification would render Weber unsatisfactory or its intended purpose because it would diminish the amount of incident light available and the modification would disrupt the reflective-absorptive-reflective layer patterns that Weber is preferential towards, Examiner notes that Weber [0066] teaches that additional enhancements can be achieved by adding additional absorptive or reflective elements. Furthermore, [0121] teaches further configurations including absorptive/reflective/reflective, and reflective/reflective/absorptive, thus Examiner does not interpret Weber to explicitly teach the unique combination without any modification.
Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). Furthermore, 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). Examiner additionally notes that Weber ‘166 explicitly teaches the interference/reflective film can include an absorptive dye [0040, 0096], thus the rejection relies upon only the teachings gleaned from the prior art.
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 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 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 1, 11, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (2002/0186474, of record), in view of Weber et al. (2015/0146166, of record), henceforth referred to as Weber ‘166.
Regarding claim 1, Weber discloses a hybrid optical filter (at least Figure 1), comprising a plurality of film layers laminated to one another (102, first reflective element, 106, absorptive element, 104, second reflective element), at least one of the film layers being a polymer film layer ([0073, 0091]), the hybrid optical filter implementing a combination of at least two different wavelength-dependent optical filtering properties in a single hybrid optical filter (at least [0101] teaches partial overlap of reflective and absorptive wavelength regions, thus indicating at least two different wavelength dependent optical filtering properties).
Weber fails to teach wherein the polymer film layer has both an absorptive filter property blocking a first range of wavelengths of light and an interference filter property blocking of a second range of wavelengths of light. Weber and Weber ‘166 are related because both teach a hybrid optical filter.
Weber ‘166 discloses a hybrid optical filter wherein the polymer film layer has both an absorptive filter property blocking a first range of wavelengths of light and an interference filter property blocking of a second range of wavelengths of light ([0040, 0096], Figure 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Weber to incorporate the teachings of Weber '166 and provide wherein the polymer film layer has both an absorptive filter property blocking a first range of wavelengths of light and an interference filter property blocking of a second range of wavelengths of light. Doing so would allow for blocking unwanted light while maintaining a color balanced white transmission.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Weber discloses the hybrid optical filter of claim 1, wherein at least one outermost layer of the plurality of film layers is a clear, transparent protective layer (at least Figure 19, 302, substrate, 304, scratch resistant layer; [0112] teaches 302, substrate, may be formed of a transparent surface including impact resistant materials such as polycarbonate; Examiner notes that the scratch resistant layer must necessarily be clear/transparent in order for the optical filter to work as intended).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Weber discloses the hybrid optical filter of claim 1, wherein the polymer film layer contains a dye or pigment having the absorptive property (Weber ‘166: [0096], Figure 11).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Weber discloses the hybrid optical filter of claim 1, wherein the absorptive filter property is present only in the at least one of the film layers and not in any other plurality of film layers (Weber ‘166: [0096] teaches the absorptive dye can be incorporated into one (emphasis added) of the thin polymeric layers).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Weber discloses the hybrid optical filter of claim 1, wherein at least one outermost layer of the plurality of film layers is a clear, transparent protective layer (at least Figure 19, 302, substrate, 304, scratch resistant layer; [0112] teaches 302, substrate, may be formed of a transparent surface including impact resistant materials such as polycarbonate; Examiner notes that the scratch resistant layer must necessarily be clear/transparent in order for the optical filter to work as intended); wherein the polymer film layer contains a dye or pigment having the absorptive property (Weber ‘166: [0096], Figure 11), and the dye or pigment is only present in the polymer film layer (Weber ‘166: [0096] teaches the absorptive dye can be incorporated into one (emphasis added) of the thin polymeric layers).
Claim 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (2015/0146166, of record) in view of Hartley et al. (2004/0025232, of record).
Regarding claim 13, Weber ‘166 discloses a method of making a hybrid optical filter (at least Figure 12, [0100]) comprising at least two polymer film layers in a single ultra-thin filter (1010, polymeric interference filter; [0100] teaches 1010, polymeric interference filter, is a multilayer reflector; [0079, 0082]), the method comprising the step of laminating the at least two polymer film layers together (at least [0079, 0082]), wherein the at least two polymer film layers includes a multilayer interference filter layer (at least [0100] teaches 1010, polymeric interference filter, is a multilayer reflector) that has both an absorptive filter property blocking a first range of wavelengths of light and an interference filter property blocking a second range of wavelengths of light (at least [0040, 0096], Figure 11).
Weber ‘166 fails to teach laminating the at least two polymer film layers together using an index-matched liquid or adhesive layer in between them to reduce total internal reflection at an interface between individual filter layers. Weber ‘166 and Hartley are related because both teach a method of making an optical filter.
Hartley discloses a method of making an optical filter comprising using an index-matched liquid or adhesive layer in between adjacent layers to reduce total internal reflection at an interface between individual filter layers (Figure 5, 29, index-matching material; [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Weber '166 to incorporate the general teachings of Hartley and provide using an index-matched liquid or adhesive layer in between them to reduce total internal reflection at an interface between individual filter layers. Doing so would allow for increasing overall transmission while maintaining adhesion strength between multiple layers.
Regarding claim 15, the modified Weber ‘166 discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the multilayer interference filter layer contains a dye or pigment having the absorptive filter property ( [0096], Figure 11).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Weber ’166 discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the absorptive filter property is present only in the at least one of the film layers and not in any other plurality of film layers ([0096] teaches the absorptive dye can be incorporated into one (emphasis added) of the thin polymeric layers).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Weber ‘166 discloses the method of claim 13, wherein each layer of the at least two polymer film layers has a thickness in the range of 0.05 mm to 1mm ([0087] teaches the multilayer polymeric interference films in the examples are approximately 0.1 mm; [0087] teaches the dye layer is less than 0.5 mm thick; furthermore, Examiner notes that it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weber et al. (2015/0146166, of record) in view of Hartley et al. (2004/0025232, of record) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Weber et al. (2002/0186474, of record).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Weber ‘166 discloses the method of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the at least two polymer film layers include one outermost film layer that is a clear, transparent protective film layer. The modified Weber ‘166 and Weber are related because both teach a method of making a hybrid optical filter.
Weber discloses a method of making a hybrid optical filter wherein the at least two polymer film layers include one outermost film layer that is a clear, transparent protective film layer (at least Figure 19, 302, substrate, [0112] teaches 302, substrate, may be formed of a transparent surface including impact resistant materials such as polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Weber '166 to incorporate the teachings of Weber and provide wherein the at least two polymer film layers include one outermost film layer that is a clear, transparent protective film layer. Doing so would allow for improved durability to the filter.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, the modified Weber ‘166 discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the multilayer interference filter layer contains a dye or pigment having the absorptive filter property ([0096], Figure 11), and the dye or pigment is only present in the multilayer interference filter layer ([0096] teaches the absorptive dye can be incorporated into one (emphasis added) of the thin polymeric layers).
The modified Weber ‘166 fails to teach wherein the at least two polymer film layers include one outermost film layer that is a clear, transparent protective film layer. The modified Weber ‘166 and Weber are related because both teach a method of making a hybrid optical filter.
Weber discloses a method of making a hybrid optical filter wherein the at least two polymer film layers include one outermost film layer that is a clear, transparent protective film layer (at least Figure 19, 302, substrate, [0112] teaches 302, substrate, may be formed of a transparent surface including impact resistant materials such as polycarbonate).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Weber '166 to incorporate the teachings of Weber and provide wherein the at least two polymer film layers include one outermost film layer that is a clear, transparent protective film layer. Doing so would allow for improved durability to the filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BALRAM T PARBADIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0602. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights