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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Hebrink et al. does not disclose the limitation as amended in claims 1, 13, and 16. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses an optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers versus wavelength comprises a reflection band edge separating a shorter wavelength range extending between about 370 nm and about 400 nm where the plurality of first polymeric layers reflects greater than about 70% of the incident light from a longer wavelength range extending between about 430 nm and about 800 nm where the plurality of first polymeric layers reflects less than about 30% of the incident light (a PET/CoPMMA multilayer reflective mirror that reflects 96.8% of the light from 370 nm to 500 nm could be laminated to a PEN/PMMA multilayer reflective mirror which reflects 98% of the light from 500 nm to 1300 nm to create a broader band mirror reflecting light from 370 nm to 1300 nm; see at least paragraph 0046); wherein, along the reflection band edge, the optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers decreases from at least about 80% at a smaller first band edge wavelength L1 to at most about 30% at a greater second band edge wavelength L2, with (L2-L1) < about 20 nm, a best linear fit across L1-L2 having a negative slope magnitude of > about 4.5%/nm and an r-squared > about 0.9 (The UV-reflective multilayer optical film was measured with the spectrophotometer ("LAMBDA 950") and determined to transmit less than 3 percent of the light over a bandwidth of 395 nm-490 nm as shown in FIG. 13; see at least figure 13 and paragraph 0125); for at least a first wavelength in the shorter wavelength range, the plurality of second polymeric layers reflects less than about 70% of the incident light, and for at least a second wavelength in the longer wavelength range, the plurality of second polymeric layers reflects greater than about 80% of the incident light (see at least paragraph 0046); and in the shorter wavelength range, the pluralities of first and second polymeric layers absorb respective A1% and A2% of the incident light, A2/A1≥150 (see at least paragraphs 0111-0114).
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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al. in order to increase efficiency and enhance brightness in projectors and liquid crystal displays including outdoor displays. In addition, 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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The claim language therefore does not patentably distinguish over the applied reference[s], and the previous rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrink et al. (US 2015/0177432).
Regarding claim 1, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses an optical stack comprising: a first optical film (10) comprising a plurality of first polymeric layers disposed on a second optical film comprising a plurality of second polymeric layers, each of the pluralities of first and second polymeric layers numbering at least 50 in total (see at least paragraph 0028), each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (see at least paragraph 0074), such that for an incident light incident at an incident angle and for a first polarization state.
Hebrink et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the optical reflectance. Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses
an optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers versus wavelength comprises a reflection band edge separating a shorter wavelength range extending between about 370 nm and about 400 nm where the plurality of first polymeric layers reflects greater than about 70% of the incident light from a longer wavelength range extending between about 430 nm and about 800 nm where the plurality of first polymeric layers reflects less than about 30% of the incident light (a PET/CoPMMA multilayer reflective mirror that reflects 96.8% of the light from 370 nm to 500 nm could be laminated to a PEN/PMMA multilayer reflective mirror which reflects 98% of the light from 500 nm to 1300 nm to create a broader band mirror reflecting light from 370 nm to 1300 nm; see at least paragraph 0046);
wherein, along the reflection band edge, the optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers decreases from at least about 80% at a smaller first band edge wavelength L1 to at most about 30% at a greater second band edge wavelength L2, with (L2-L1) < about 20 nm, a best linear fit across L1-L2 having a negative slope magnitude of > about 4.5%/nm and an r-squared > about 0.9 (The UV-reflective multilayer optical film was measured with the spectrophotometer ("LAMBDA 950") and determined to transmit less than 3 percent of the light over a bandwidth of 395 nm-490 nm as shown in FIG. 13; see at least figure 13 and paragraph 0125);
for at least a first wavelength in the shorter wavelength range, the plurality of second polymeric layers reflects less than about 70% of the incident light, and for at least a second wavelength in the longer wavelength range, the plurality of second polymeric layers reflects greater than about 80% of the incident light (see at least paragraph 0046); and
in the shorter wavelength range, the pluralities of first and second polymeric layers absorb respective A1% and A2% of the incident light, A2/A1≥150 (see at least paragraphs 0111-0114).
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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al. in order to increase efficiency and enhance brightness in projectors and liquid crystal displays including outdoor displays. In addition, 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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The limitation, “such that for an incident light incident at an incident angle” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 2, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the incident angle is less than about 5 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the incident angle is less than about 5 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 3, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the incident angle is between about 30 and 60 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the incident angle is between about 30 and 60 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 4, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein along the reflection band edge, the optical reflectance of the of the plurality of first polymeric layers decreases from about 70% at a shorter first band edge wavelength to about 30% at a longer second band edge wavelength, the first and second band edge wavelength disposed between about 410 nm and about 440 nm (see at least paragraph 0126).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein a best linear fit to the reflection band edge at least across a wavelength range along the reflection band edge where the optical reflectance decreases from about 80% to about 50% has a negative slope having a magnitude of greater than about 5%/nm (see at least paragraph 0065).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the best linear fit has an r-squared value greater than about 0.95.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the first optical film defines an x-axis along a first polarization state, a y-axis along an orthogonal second polarization state perpendicular to the x-axis, and a z-axis along a thickness direction of the first optical film orthogonal to the x- and y-axes, the plurality of first polymeric layers comprising a plurality of alternating polymeric A and B layers, each of the A and B layers having an index nx along the x-axis, an index ny along the y-axis, and an index nz along the z-axis, wherein: for the A layers, nx>ny>nz, nx is greater than ny by at least about 0.01, and ny is greater than nz by at least about 0.025; for the B layers, a magnitude of a maximum difference between nx, ny and nz is less than about 0.01; and a magnitude of a difference between the nz of the A and B layers is less than about 0.01(see at least paragraphs 0121-0122).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 8, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the plurality of first polymeric layers of the first optical film comprises a plurality of alternating polymeric A and B layers, each A layer comprising polyethylene terephthalate (PET), each B layer comprising polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) (see at least claim 10).
Regarding claim 9, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the plurality of first polymeric layers numbers at least 75 in total (see at least paragraph 0074).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the first optical film defines an x-axis along a first polarization state, a y-axis along an orthogonal second polarization state perpendicular to the x-axis, and a z-axis along a thickness direction of the first optical film orthogonal to the x- and y-axes, the plurality of first polymeric layers comprising a plurality of alternating polymeric A and B layers, each of the A and B layers having an index nx along the x-axis, an index ny along the y-axis, and an index nz along the z-axis, wherein: for the A layers, nx>ny>nz, nx is greater than ny by at least about 0.01, and ny is greater than nz by at least about 0.025; for the B layers, a magnitude of a maximum difference between nx, ny and nz is less than about 0.01; and a magnitude of a difference between the nz of the A and B layers is less than about 0.01(every other layers of 21A, 21B, 22A, and 22B; see at least paragraphs 0109 and 0121-0122).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 11, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the plurality of second polymeric layers of the second optical film comprises a plurality of alternating polymeric C and D layers, each C layer comprising polyethylene naphthalate (PEN), each D layer comprising polycarbonate (PC) (see at least paragraph 0109).
Regarding claim 12, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the plurality of second polymeric layers numbers at least 100 in total (see at least paragraph 0074).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses an optical stack comprising: a first optical film (10) comprising a plurality of first polymeric layers disposed on a second optical film comprising a plurality of second polymeric layers, each of the pluralities of first and second polymeric layers numbering at least 50 in total (see at least paragraph 0028), each of the first and second polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (see at least paragraph 0074), such that for an incident light incident at an incident angle and for a first polarization state.
Hebrink et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the optical reflectance. Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses
an optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers versus wavelength comprises a reflection band edge separating a shorter wavelength range extending between about 370 nm and about 400 nm where the plurality of first polymeric layers reflects greater than about 70% of the incident light of at least a smaller first wavelength, L1in the shorter wavelength range from a longer wavelength range extending between about 430 nm and about 800 nm where the plurality of first polymeric layers reflects less than about 30% of the incident light of at least a greater second wavelength, L2,in the longer wavelength range (a PET/CoPMMA multilayer reflective mirror that reflects 96.8% of the light from 370 nm to 500 nm could be laminated to a PEN/PMMA multilayer reflective mirror which reflects 98% of the light from 500 nm to 1300 nm to create a broader band mirror reflecting light from 370 nm to 1300 nm; see at least paragraph 0046);
wherein, along the reflection band edge, the optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers decreases from at least about 80% at a smaller first band edge wavelength L1 to at most about 30% at a greater second band edge wavelength L2, with (L2-L1) < about 20 nm, a best linear fit across L1-L2 having a negative slope magnitude of > about 4.5%/nm and an r-squared > about 0.9 (The UV-reflective multilayer optical film was measured with the spectrophotometer ("LAMBDA 950") and determined to transmit less than 3 percent of the light over a bandwidth of 395 nm-490 nm as shown in FIG. 13; see at least figure 13 and paragraph 0125);
an optical reflectance of the plurality of second polymeric layers over a band edge wavelength range extending from the smaller first wavelength to the greater second wavelength has an average value of greater than about 80% and varies by less than about 20% (see at least paragraph 0046); and
in the band edge wavelength range, the pluralities of first and second polymeric layers absorb respective A1′% and A2′% of the incident light, A2′/A1′≥ about 5 (see at least paragraphs 0111-0114).
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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al. in order to increase efficiency and enhance brightness in projectors and liquid crystal displays including outdoor displays. In addition, 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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The limitation, “such that for an incident light incident at an incident angle” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 14, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the incident angle is less than about 5 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the incident angle is less than about 5 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 15, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the incident angle is between about 30 and 60 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the incident angle is between about 30 and 60 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 16, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses display system (300) comprising:
an extended light source configured to emit light from an emission surface thereof, the emitted light having a blue emission peak at a blue peak wavelength and a corresponding full width at half maximum extending from a smaller first blue wavelength to a greater second blue wavelength (figure 16):
a mirror (see at least paragraph 0111-0114);
a reflective polarizer configured to receive the light emitted by the extended light source through the mirror, each of the mirror and the reflective polarizer comprising a plurality of polymeric layers numbering at least 50 in total, such that for an incident light incident at an incident angle (see at least paragraphs 0028 and 0074).
Hebrink et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the optical reflectance. Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses
an optical reflectance of the plurality of first polymeric layers versus wavelength comprises a reflection band edge extending at least between a higher first optical reflectance at a smaller first wavelength and a lower second optical reflectance at a greater second wavelength; (see at least paragraph 0046);
for the wavelengths between the first and the second blue wavelengths, the reflective polarizer has an average reflectance of greater than about 60% for a first polarization state and an average transmittance of greater than about 60% for an orthogonal second polarization state (see at least paragraph 0046);
an optical reflectance of the mirror versus wavelength for each of the first and second polarization states comprises a reflection band edge extending at least between a higher first optical reflectance R1 at a smaller first wavelength L1in a shorter wavelength range extending between about 300 nm and about 400 nm and a lower second optical reflectance R2 at a greater second wavelength L2 in a greater wavelength range extending from about 420 nm to about 800 nm, R1-R2 > 55%, L2-L1 < 20 nm, wherein for at least one wavelength smaller than, and within, about 50 nm of L1, the mirror and the reflective polarizer absorb respective Al"% and A2"% of the incident light, A2"/A1"> 5 (a PET/CoPMMA multilayer reflective mirror that reflects 96.8% of the light from 370 nm to 500 nm could be laminated to a PEN/PMMA multilayer reflective mirror which reflects 98% of the light from 500 nm to 1300 nm to create a broader band mirror reflecting light from 370 nm to 1300 nm; see at least paragraphs 0046 and 0111-0114).
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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al. in order to increase efficiency and enhance brightness in projectors and liquid crystal displays including outdoor displays. In addition, 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 ranges as taught by Hebrink et al., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize utilizing a value close to applicant's claimed range, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap by are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of “having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium” as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.). See MPEP § 2144.05.
The limitation, “such that for an incident light incident at an incident angle” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 17, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the incident angle is less than about 5 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the incident angle is less than about 5 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 18, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the incident angle is between about 30 and 60 degrees.
The limitation, “wherein the incident angle is between about 30 and 60 degrees” is functional in nature. Such a functional limitation is only given patentable weight insofar as it imparts a structural limitation. Here, Hebrink et al. discloses the structural limitations required to performed the function as claimed. It is further noted that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art and that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art (see e.g. MPEP 2114). In other words, the prior art need not perform the function, but must merely be capable of doing so.
Regarding claim 19, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the emission surface, the mirror and the reflective polarizer are substantially parallel, and co-extensive in length and width, with each other (figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 20, Hebrink et al. (figure 2) discloses wherein the mirror and the reflective polarizer are substantially parallel, and co-extensive in length and width, with each other, and the emission surface makes an angle of between about 20 degrees and 70 degrees with the mirror (figures 7-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Carruth, can be reached at 571-272-97911. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871