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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 June 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 7-14 are pending.
Claims 7-11 are non-elected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/10/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the remarks, the applicant argues that the combination of Bak and Kato fails to teach or suggest 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.
The examiner concedes that Bak and Kato do not explicitly teach or suggest the claimed weight ratio.
However, Bak provides sufficient teaching that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed weight ratio. As previously cited, Bak discloses specific examples of the content of the copper compound as a percentage of the total mass of the solids of the film (see at least Table 8 on pages 33-34). Bak additionally discloses that the content of the copper compound is from 20% to 90% by mass with respect to the mass of the total solid content of the composition containing the copper compound (see paragraph [0154]) and the content of the binder in the composition containing the copper compound is from 1% to 20% by mass (see paragraph [0245]). The examiner notes that the copper compound includes the phosphoric acid ester (see paragraphs [0057]-[0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at a weight ratio within the claimed range in order to optimize the coating composition and the optical film, particularly the infrared ray absorbing property.
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) of record (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).
Bak as modified by Kato does not specifically disclose 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.
The examiner notes that the claimed ranged is interpreted as 5% to 75%.
Bak also discloses that the content of the copper compound is from 20% to 90% by mass with respect to the mass of the total solid content of the composition containing the copper compound (see paragraph [0154]) with specific examples ranging from 28.0% to 88.7% (see at least Table 8 on pages 33-34) and the content of the binder in the composition containing the copper compound is from 1% to 20% by mass (see paragraph [0245]), wherein the copper compound includes the phosphoric acid ester (see paragraphs [0057]-[0059]). The content mass percentages of the copper compound and the binder are both considered result effective variables, and thus a ratio of the two would also be considered a result effective variable.
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 a weight ratio of the organometallic complex and the phosphorous-containing dispersant to the thermoplastic resin being from 0.5/9.5 to 7.5/2.5 include optimizing the infrared ray absorbing properties of the coating solution.
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 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 for the purpose of optimizing the infrared ray absorbing properties of the coating solution.
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.
Claim 13 is 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) of record (hereafter Kato) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Kubo et al. (US 2021/0356638) of record (hereafter Kubo’21).
Regarding claim 13, Bak as modified by Kato discloses all of the limitations of claim 12.
Bak also discloses that the film has a thickness of from 10 μm to 100 μm (see at least paragraph [0027]), a transmittance at a wavelength of 900 nm is 10% or less (see at least paragraph [0464]).
Bak as modified by Kato does not specifically disclose that the film has 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.
However, Kubo’21 teaches a film formed from 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]), wherein 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]).
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 film of Bak as modified by Kato to include the teachings of Kubo’21 so that the film has 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 for the purpose of improving infrared ray blocking properties, while maintaining visible light transmittance for use in a variety of applications such as video cameras (see at least paragraphs [0002]-[0003] of Bak).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights