DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on December 11, 2025. In accordance with this amendment, claims 1-5 have been amended (note that “Withdrawn” claims 16-20 have been amended, but remain withdrawn), claims 13-15 have been canceled, while new claims 21-23 have been added.
Claims 1-6 and 21-23 are examined herein, and are finally rejected, with claim 1 as the sole independent claim. Claims 7-12 and 16-20 remain non-elected / withdrawn from consideration.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
New dependent claims 21-23 are added to the elected Group I, originally claims 1-6. These claims are added because they depend from independent claim 1.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted again that Applicant has not filed an Information Disclosure Statement. If Applicant becomes aware of any prior art that may be pertinent to the examination and analysis of the claimed subject matter, a PTO-1449 form should be filed.
Drawings
The original drawings are now objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a), based on the amendment to add new dependent claim 23 as dated on December 11, 2025. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the newly claimed subject matter of “wherein a thickness of the first layer of the birefringent OSC material and a thickness of the second layer of the OSC material vary continuously across the OSC layer stack, such that the thickness of each successive first layer and second layer increases throughout the OSC layer stack” (note Applicant’s original specification paragraph [0059] is the only mention of such feature(s)), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While such subject matter has clear support from the originally filed application, and is not considered as new matter, such features must be shown in at least one drawing.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: akin to the objection to the drawing (pertaining to new dependent claim 23 features not being shown in any figure), the specification is objected to for the same reasons. There is no clear disclosure of such claimed subject matter in a drawing, and if/when a new drawing is added, there would need to be a corresponding paragraph of description.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488, standing alone.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, Ouderkirk et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488 teaches (ABS; Figs. 3-5, 14-18; corresponding text, in particular columns 3-6; columns 21-22 “Materials Selection and Processing”; column 22, line 65 through column 23, line 5; Claims) a multilayer reflective polarizer 12 (Figs. 4 and 14) comprising an organic crystal material (layered) stack, the layer stack comprising: a first layer of birefringent crystalline organic material (as in alternating layers of Fig. 4, at least the first layer “A”, for example; noting “Materials Selection and Processing” in columns 21-22; note also column 22, line 65 through column 23 line 5), wherein the example birefringent crystalline organic materials comprise a refractive index of at least approximately 1.5 (approximately 1.64 – 1.65 cited in Ouderkirk; also range of 1.64 – 1.88 depending on stretching ratios), and the example birefringent materials of Ouderkirk also exhibit a birefringence of at least approximately 0.1 (inherent property based on chosen materials and means for creating the multi-layers; in comparison to similar materials used in the current application, elements shown in columns 21, 22, and column 22, line 67 through column 23, line 5 will have a birefringence of at least 0.1), and a second layer of birefringent crystalline organic material (layer “B” in Figs. 4 and 14) in which the second layer is overlying the first layer.
Regarding sole examined independent claim 1, Ouderkirk does not expressly and exactly teach a single embodiment in which the birefringent material is an “organic solid crystal (OSC)” material in both the first and the second layer. Ouderkirk alludes to many similar materials, and in particular in column 21-23, and most notably in column 22, line 67 through column 23, line 5, which discusses “suitable” multilayer construction from known processes such as with types of organic crystalline compounds. The term “solid” in the “OSC” abbreviated is noted for breadth, and the date of Ouderkirk’s publication (October 27, 1988), such a term may be implied because the crystals are solid in nature.
Regardless, based on the overall teachings and overall described features of Ouderkirk in column 21-23, it would have been obvious to recognized the creation of such a multi-layer stack (as in Ouderkirk Figs 4 and 14) in that each of the first layer “A” and second layer “B” to be comprised of “an organic solid crystal” material to create the stack. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current application (June 2, 2022) to select usable similar materials to Ouderkirk, such as “organic solid crystal” (OSC) materials, with both similar birefringence properties (above 0.1) and refractive index (above 1.5), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is respectfully noted that the birefringence level and refractive index level of the materials listed are either the same, or substantially similar, to all featured and described material properties in the Ouderkirk column 21-23 materials. Further, Applicant has not disclosed that using such features provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, the purposes and problems are substantially the same in Ouderkirk and the current application (stacked layering of birefringent materials to create a reflective polarizer). It would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at a reflective polarized with the materials as “OSC”, into Ouderkirk. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of common skill and design choice to modify (and/or update) Ouderkirk with the features of independent claim 1. See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, the features of the multi-layer crystal chosen in Ouderkirk can be considered contiguous (claim 2), chosen from a molecule listed in the Group by the “Materials Selection” (claim 3), and includes at least transparencies of at least approximately 60% (claim 4) depending upon the wavelengths of light (visible or IR, input to materials in Ouderkirk will inherently be at least 60% based on those materials chosen and formed in the multi-layer polarizer 12. Therefore, all structural features of these device dependent claims are also found as obvious over Ouderkirk.
Regarding new dependent claims 21-22, using an OSC which is either optically isotropic (claim 21) or optically anisotropic (claim 22) would also have been an obvious design choice with similar usable materials. Further, if both features are separately claimed (both isotropic and anisotropic), such is persuasive evidence that neither of such features is critical, and either could easily be incorporated as the chosen material by a skilled artisan. Therefore, the same logic applies to claims 21-22 for choosable and selectable materials as in claim 1 above. KSR. Claims 21-22 are therefore found obvious over Ouderkirk, standing alone.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouderkirk et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,828,488, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gates et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,799,231.
Regarding base independent claim 1, Ouderkirk US ‘488 makes obvious such a combination of features. See the full 35 U.S.C. 103 obviousness rejection as above in section (11) to Ouderkirk.
Regarding further dependent claims 5-6, Ouderkirk does not expressly and exactly teach a primary and secondary electrode are formed and overlapping to each other, wherein the birefringent organic solid crystal layer is disposed therebetween (claim 5); or that the transparency of such electrodes is at least approximately 60% depending on wavelength of near IR or visible (claim 6).
Gates et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,799,231 teaches (ABS; Figs. 2, 3a, 3b, 5, 6; corresponding text, column 11; Claims) a multi-layer structure that incorporates at least a primary and a secondary electrode, in that the electrodes include an optical functional layer therebetween in order to allow for tunable / controllable features of such optical layer, and in that the electrodes are substantially transparent of at least 60% (ABS). Such formation of the electrodes is known to improve tunability of the optics.
Since Ouderkirk and Gates are both from the same field of endeavor, the purpose disclosed by Gates would have been recognized in the pertinent art of Ouderkirk.
A person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the current application would have recognized the teaching of Gates, to use a primary and secondary electrode, those being overlapped with respect to each other for a multi-layer film configuration, and usable as tunable features for an intervening optical layer to tune / control the optical properties of such intervening layer, into the base design of the multi-layer reflective polarizer of Ouderkirk, to allow for obvious intended results of design choice to have tunability / controllability of polarizers, for improving optical operation and user experience in a display. Further, it would have required no undue burden or unnecessary experimentation to arrive at such feature of a tunability by having both the primary and secondary electrodes incorporated as in the design of Gates (into Ouderkirk). See KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007). For these reasons, dependent claims 5-6 are found obvious over Ouderkirk and further in view of Gates.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding newly filed dependent claim 23, the Ouderkirk prior art reference does not expressly teach or reasonably suggest such a new feature for “wherein a thickness of the first layer of the birefringent OSC material and a thickness of the second layer of the OSC material vary continuously across the OSC layer stack, such that the thickness of each successive first layer and second layer increases throughout the OSC layer stack.” Therefore, no reasonable 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection can be made at this point of prosecution.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment with remarks (to narrow the scope of claim 1), filed on December 11, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-4 to Ouderkirk (and further claims 5-6 to Ouderkirk and further in view of Gate) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Notably, the Examiner agrees that there is no anticipation for all features of claim 1, based on the amendment presented December 11, 2025. Therefore, those rejections mailed on September 11, 2024 have been withdrawn based on the amendment. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ouderkirk, with different rationale (35 U.S.C 103). Clear explanation has been given how Ouderkirk makes obvious such features of independent claim 1.
Notably, the Examiner agrees that dependent claim 23 cannot be found obvious, with clear motivation and rationale to combine all such features of this claim. However, the drawings must be updated to show such subject matter. Applicant is advised to correct the drawings (and add a corresponding paragraph to the specification for a new drawing / figure) and to amend dependent claim 23 into claim 1.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment dated December 11, 2025 has necessitated any shift(s) of rejection, or new ground(s) of rejection, as 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.
PTO-892 reference A to Weber US ‘897 is pertinent to reflective polarizers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Petkovsek whose telephone number is (571) 272-4174. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 - 6 PM.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/DANIEL PETKOVSEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874 March 12, 2026