DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
The 112 rejections set forth in the non-final rejection of 9/24/25, paragraphs 2-3 have been withdrawn.
REJECTIONS REPEATED
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP6622464 (English machine translation provided herein) in view of Carrega et al. (US 2018/0321514) and WO 99/36808 (provided herein).
JP6622464 discloses a sheet for pharmaceutical packaging that blocks UV rays and transmits visible light, comprising a polymer laminate, wherein each polymer layer of the polymer laminate has a thickness of 50-300 micrometers, and wherein a transmittance of the sheet versus wavelength comprises a band edge separating a first wavelength range comprising at least wavelengths from 220 to 380 nm having a maximum transmittance of 1% from a second wavelength range comprising at least wavelengths from 500 to 600 nm having a transmittance of 60%-70% (see paragraphs [0026], [0028], [0032], [0059], [0063], [0076] and figure2).
JP6622464 does not disclose that an average optical transmittance is greater than about 70% in a second wavelength range comprising at least wavelengths from 520 nm to 680 nm; and a best linear fit to a band edge correlating an optical transmittance to a wavelength at least across a wavelength range where the optical
transmittance along the band edge increases from 10% to at least 70% has a slope of greater than about 3%/nm.
Carrega et al. (US 2018/0321514) discloses that an average optical transmittance is greater than about 70% in a second wavelength range comprising at least wavelengths from 520 nm to 680 nm; and a best linear fit to a band edge correlating an optical transmittance to a wavelength at least across a wavelength range where the optical transmittance along the band edge increases from 10% to at least 70% has a slope of greater than about 3%/nm (paragraphs [0001], [0053 – 0055], optical means for blocking at least part of blue light and protecting from UV light has an
optical transmittance, wherein the optical transmittance at the 435 nm wavelength is 10% or less, the optical transmittance at the 450 nm wavelength is 70% or less, and the optical transmittance at the 480 nm wavelength is 80% or more) in order to provide improved protection from undesirable light (paragraphs [0001], [0008).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided an average optical transmittance is greater than about 70% in a second wavelength range comprising at least wavelengths from 520 nm to 680 nm; and a best linear fit to a band edge correlating an optical transmittance to a wavelength at least across a wavelength range where the optical
transmittance along the band edge increases from 10% to at least 70% has a slope of greater than about 3%/nm in JP6622464 in order to provide improved protection from undesirable light as taught or suggested by Carrega.
JP6622464 does not disclose an optical film comprising an optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers numbering at least 20 in total.
WO 99/36808 discloses an optical film comprising an optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers numbering at least 20 in total (page 1, page 8, page 11, line 29 through page 12, line 31) in order to prevent degradation of the optical film.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant’s invention was made to have provided an optical film comprising an optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers numbering at least 20 in total in JP6622464 in order to prevent degradation of the optical film as taught or suggested by WO 99/36808.
JP6622464 discloses claims 2-7 (paragraphs [0066], [0076-0077], [0081] and [0026], [0028], [0032], [0059], [0063], [0076] and figure2).
Carrega discloses claims 8-9 (paragraphs [0039 – 0041]).
NEW REJECTIONS
There are no new rejections.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments of 12/17/25 have been carefully considered by are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues, “Without agreeing with any other statement made in the Office Action concerning the claims, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's assertion that it would have been obvious to include the polymeric layers of WO 99/36808 in JP6622464 ‘in order to prevent degradation’ (Office Action, p. 5) at least because WO 99/36808 only teaches avoiding degradation by replacing metalized and dyed polymer films with the infrared reflective multilayer polymeric optical films of WO 99/36808 (see, e.g., p. 1, line 6 to p. 2, line 2). There is no disclosure or even suggestion that incorporating the infrared reflective plurality of polymeric layers disclosed in WO 99/36808 would have somehow prevented degradation of JP6622464, contrary to the Office Action's assertions. Indeed, WO 99/36808 discloses that metalized and dyed polymer films are susceptible to UV degradation (see, e.g., p. 1, lines 10-13), while the multilayer infrared reflective films of WO 99/36808 are configured to reflect in the infrared, not in the UV, and for at least this reason, the person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reasonably expected that including the polymeric layers of WO 99/36808 in JP6622464 would have somehow prevented degradation of JP6622464. Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to replace the UV absorbing layer of JP6622464 with the polymeric layers of WO 99/36808 since the polymeric layers of WO 99/36808 do not block the wavelengths JP6622464
teaches should be blocked.
For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action has failed to provide adequate articulated reasoning having valid rational underpinnings to explain why, in the absence of hindsight, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have made the proposed changes to WO 99/36808. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that a proper prima facie case of obviousness has not been established and that the rejection should be withdrawn.”
However, the proposed modification is not to replace the layers of JP’464 with the layers of WO’808. The proposed modification is that it would have been obvious to provide at least 20 layers in JP’464 in order to prevent degradation as taught or suggested by WO’808. The rejection does not rely on the specific materials disclosed in WO’808.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL C MIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-1494. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 1-9 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C MIGGINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
MCM
January 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights