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
The amendment filed on 08/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Weber ‘166 fails to teach a polymer film layer 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. Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Weber’s 102 or 104, reflective elements, to include an absorptive filter property because introducing an absorptive element into one of the reflective elements would disrupt the overlap of reflective wavelength regions. Applicant argues Weber ‘166 fails to expressly teach adding the absorptive dye to a layer with a distinct reflective property because Weber ‘166 teaches adding the dye as a thin coating to a polymer substrate. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Weber ‘166 fails to teach a polymer film layer 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, Examiner notes that at least Figure 11 depicts the yellow dye and the yellow reflector filtering two different range of wavelengths of light.
Regarding applicant’s argument that it would not have been obvious to modify Weber’s 102 or 104, reflective elements, to include an absorptive filter property because introducing an absorptive element into one of the reflective elements would disrupt the overlap of reflective wavelength regions, Examiner notes that Weber ’166 [0047] teaches that 110, polymeric interference filter, is a multilayer (emphasis added) optical infrared reflecting film. The multilayer component of the multilayer film is interpreted as not teaching away from Weber’s thrust of the invention. Furthermore, Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Weber ‘166 explicitly teaches the interference/reflective film can include an absorptive dye [0040, 0096].
Regarding applicant’s argument that Weber ‘166 fails to expressly teach adding the absorptive dye to a layer with a distinct reflective property because Weber ‘166 teaches adding the dye as a thin coating to a polymer substrate, Examiner notes that [0096] teaches “…this dye could be incorporated in a thin coating on a polymer substrate such as a polymeric edge interference filter such as the yellow reflector of Example 3, or incorporated into one of the other thin polymeric layers of the lens construction (emphasis added)”. Examiner interprets the emphasized statement as incorporating the absorptive dye directly within the polymeric layer rather than on the polymeric substrate.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
The second instance of claim 17, henceforth “misnumbered claim 17” has been renumbered to claim 21.
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
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 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 on (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