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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 6-14 are pending.
Claims 7-11 are non-elected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 USC 112(b) is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7 of the remarks, filed 22 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of US 2022/080217 to Kubo et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1 and 12-14 under 35 USC 102 in view of US 2022/080217 to Kubo et al. has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 4-5 of the remarks, filed 22 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of US 2015/0346404 to Bak et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Bak, of record, and Kato et al. (US 2023/0295373).
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the remarks, filed 22 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 in view of US 2021/0356638 to Kubo et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC 103 in view of Kubo, of record, and Kato et al. (US 2023/0295373).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak et al. (US 2015/0346404) of record (hereafter Bak), in view of Kato et al. (US 2023/0295373) (hereafter Kato).
Regarding claim 1, Bak discloses an organometallic complex coating solution, comprising: an organometallic complex (see at least paragraph [0139], phosphoric acid ester copper complex); a phosphorus-containing dispersant (see at least paragraphs [0247]-[0248], polyoxyethylene alkyl phosphoric acid ester as a surfactant); and an optical resin (see at least paragraphs [0233]-[0244], binder can be a resin), wherein the optical resin includes a thermoplastic resin (see at least paragraph [0280]).
Bak does not specifically disclose that the thermoplastic resin is at least one resin selected from the group consisting of a polycarbonate and a polycyclic olefin wherein the polycarbonate and the polycyclic olefin have the claimed structures.
However, Kato teaches a thermoplastic resin that comprises polycarbonate having the claimed structure (see at least the title and page 10, paragraph [0158], where formula I-1 is the same as the claimed polycarbonate structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating solution of Bak to include the teachings of Kato so that the thermoplastic resin is a polycarbonate having the claimed structure for the purpose of using a known material in the art in order to obtain predictable results such as high purity and good market availability (see at least paragraph [0156] of Kato).
Regarding claim 6, Bak as modified by Kato discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bak also discloses that a weight ratio of the organometallic complex and the phosphorous-containing dispersant to the thermoplastic resin is from 0.5/9.5 to 7.5/2.5 (see at least Table 8 on pages 33-34, where the content of the copper compound as a percent by mass ranges from 28.0% to 88.7% for various examples, the claimed range is interpreted as 5% to 75%).
Regarding claim 12, Bak as modified by Kato discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Bak also discloses a near-infrared absorption film formed from the organometallic complex coating solution according to claim 1 (see at least paragraphs [0008] and [0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Bak as modified by Kato discloses all of the limitations of claim 12.
Bak also discloses that the maximum absorption wavelength of the copper compound or pigment is in a range of 700 nm to 1000 nm and that of a composition containing a metal oxide in a range of 800 nm to 2000 nm (see at least paragraph [0012]).
Bak as modified by Kato does not specifically disclose that 50% transmittance of the near-infrared absorption film occurs at a wavelength of 700 nm or more.
However, 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Among the benefits of 50% transmittance of the near-infrared absorption film occurring at a wavelength of 700 nm or more include optimizing the near infrared ray shielding property of the coating solution to cut-off at a desired wavelength.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating solution of Bak as modified by Kato so that 50% transmittance of the near-infrared absorption film occurs at a wavelength of 700 nm or more for the purpose of optimizing the near infrared ray shielding property of the coating solution to cut-off at a desired wavelength.
Claims 1 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubo et al. (US 2021/0356638) of record (hereafter Kubo’21), in view of Kato et al. (US 2023/0295373) (hereafter Kato).
Regarding claim 1, Kubo’21 discloses an organometallic complex coating solution, comprising: an organometallic complex (see at least paragraphs [0076], [0083], and [0089]-[0090], where copper salts such as copper acetate are combined with phosphoric acid, thus generating a copper phosphonate); a phosphorus-containing dispersant (see at least paragraph [0096], where phosphoric acid ester has a dispersing effect); and an optical resin (see at least paragraph [0078], where the light absorbing layer includes a resin such as polyester, polycarbonate, or polyolefin resins), wherein the optical resin includes a thermoplastic resin and that the thermoplastic resin is a polycarbonate (see at least paragraph [0078]).
Kubo’21 does not specifically disclose that the polycarbonate has the claimed structure.
However, Kato teaches a thermoplastic resin that comprises polycarbonate having the claimed structure (see at least the title and page 10, paragraph [0158], where formula I-1 is the same as the claimed polycarbonate structure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coating solution of Kubo’21 to include the teachings of Kato so that the thermoplastic resin is a polycarbonate having the claimed structure for the purpose of using a known material in the art in order to obtain predictable results such as high purity and good market availability (see at least paragraph [0156] of Kato).
Regarding claim 12, Kubo’21 as modified by Kato discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
Kubo’21 also discloses a near-infrared absorption film formed from the organometallic complex coating solution according to claim 1 (see at least paragraph [0082]).
Regarding claim 13, Kubo’21 as modified by Kato discloses all of the limitations of claim 12.
Kubo’21 also discloses that the film has a thickness of from 10 μm to 100 μm, an average transmittance of 60% to 90% to the light in the wavelength range of from 400 nm to 700 nm and an average transmittance of 40% or less to the light in the wavelength range of from .800 n to 1100 nm (see at least paragraphs [0027]-[0029]).
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 ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872