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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are currently pending. In response to the Office Action mailed 9/03/2025 Applicant amended claim 1 and canceled claim 4.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190033620 A1 to Yahagi et al. in view of US 20200255325 A1 Dejneka et al. further in view of US 20150248023 A1 to Kimura et al.
Regarding Claim 1. Yahagi discloses an optical film obtained by laminating a light reflective layer (Fig. 1 light reflection layer 1) and a polarizing element layer (Fig. 1 polarization element layer 4), wherein: a product (TO%) of the minimum transmittance of the light reflective layer and the transmittance of the polarizing element layer in the central reflection wavelength of the light reflective layer is 5% or more (See Fig. 7 at least example 5 having a local minimum, in the central reflection wavelength between 600-680 nm, of at least 5%); a difference (T2-T1) between an average value (T1%) of the product of the transmittance of the light reflective layer and the transmittance of the polarizing element layer in the central reflection wavelength region of the light reflective layer and an average value (T2%) of the product of the transmittance of the light reflective layer and the transmittance of the polarizing element layer in the wavelength region excluding the central reflection wavelength region in a visible light region of 400 to 750 nm satisfies -10 or more and 20 or less (See Fig. 7 example 5 having differences of -10 or more and 20 or less excluding regions 400-750 nm), the optical film satisfies one or more of the following (a) to (d): (a) a central reflection wavelength of the light reflective layer is 600 nm or more and less than 660 nm, and a transmission hue of the optical film is within a region of −10≤a*≤5 and −5≤b*≤5, (b) a central reflection wavelength of the light reflective layer is 500 nm or more and less than 600 nm, and a transmission hue of the optical film is within a region of −5≤a*≤5 and −5≤b*≤5, (c) a central reflection wavelength of the light reflective layer is 660 nm or more and less than 750 nm, and a transmission hue of the optical film is within a region of −5≤a*≤5 and −5≤b*≤5, and (d) a central reflection wavelength of the light reflective layer is 400 nm or more and less than 500 nm, a minimum transmittance of the light reflective layer at 400 nm or more and less than 500 nm is 15% or more, and a transmission hue of the optical film is within a region of −10≤a*≤10 and −5≤b*≤35 (See at least Table 2, example 1); wherein the polarizing element layer is formed of a stretched polymer film containing a dichroic pigment (See para 44).
Yahagi further discloses using colored pigments (See para 4 “polarization elements in various colors can be obtained depending on the color of used pigment”), but Yahagi does not specifically disclose the optical film satisfies standards for traffic signal visibility specified in ISO 12312-1:2013, ANSI Z80.3:2010, and/or AS/NZS 1067:2003; and the dichroic pigment comprises two or more pigments selected from red pigment, yellow pigment and blue pigment; and wherein the pigments each have mutually different contents.
However, Dejneka discloses an optical film satisfies standards for traffic signal visibility specified in ISO 12312-1:2013, ANSI Z80.3:2010, and/or AS/NZS 1067:2003 (para 118), as a well known industry standard, wherein the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
In addition, Kimura discloses the dichroic pigment comprises two or more pigments selected from red pigment, yellow pigment and blue pigment; and wherein the pigments each have mutually different contents (para 42 “combining at least three types of dichroic organic dyes so as to have a dichroic ratio in the optical absorption wavelength of blue (450 nm), green (550 nm), and red (650 nm)”), as the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP2143(I)(B), KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before Applicant’s effective filing date to include the optical film satisfies standards for traffic signal visibility specified in ISO 12312-1:2013, ANSI Z80.3:2010, and/or AS/NZS 1067:2003.
Regarding Claim 2. Yahagi further discloses the light reflective layer comprises one or more cholesteric liquid crystal layers (See at least para 57).
Regarding Claim 3. Yahagi further discloses the light reflective layer has a cholesteric liquid crystal layer R having a right-handed helical orientation and a cholesteric liquid crystal layer L having a left-handed helical orientation (See para 32-34).
Regarding Claim 6. Yahagi further discloses the optical film according to claim 1 is disposed between a first support and a second support (See Fig. 2 first support body 5 and a second support body 6).
Regarding Claim 7. Yahagi further discloses the first and second supports are polycarbonate (para 51).
Regarding Claim 8. Yahagi further discloses an eyewear comprising the optical film according to claim 1 (para 53).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 filed on 12/03/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDMOND C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-5859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at (571) 272-9791. 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.
/EDMOND C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871