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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims, in the submission dated 04/08/2026, are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 5, 7, 16, 18, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda et al. US PGPub 2015/0109651 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Branda”) as evidenced by Schael, George W. "Determination of polyolefin film properties from refractive index measurements." Journal of Applied Polymer Science 8.6 (1964): 2717-2722 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Schael”), in view of Oyama et al. US PGPub 2019/0049809 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Oyama”) and Hayes et al. US PGPub 2007/0172637 A1 (hereinafter, “Hayes”)
Regarding amended independent claim 1, Branda discloses an optical filter (refer to at least title and abstract disclosing an optical filter) comprising:
a substrate (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7a-7h show sectional views of the various embodiments of the optical filter disclosed, refer to pars. [0075-78],where any of the layers can be considered equivalent to a substrate, and Branda further discloses the optical filter is comprised of a laminated glass, par. [0047], which also can be considered equivalent to a substrate, for instance, in Fig. 3, optical filter embodiment 10 has layer 12 that may be glass, par. [0075], and Branda discloses a variable transmittance layer comprises a variable transmittance optical filter with a substrate, par. [0089]); and
a transmittance control layer (an optical filter comprising a variable transmittance layer is disclosed, par. [0047], where a variable transmittance layer is equivalent to a transmittance control layer as best understood by the Examiner) formed on one or both surfaces of the substrate (Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7a-7h show sectional views of the various embodiments of the optical filter disclosed, pars. [0075-78], where at least Fig. 3 shows variable transmittance layer 14 is formed on at least one side of layer 12, par. [0075]),
and with regard to the limitation ΔT1 is 0.5% or more in Equation 1: ΔT1 = 100 × (TF1 - TS1)/TS1, wherein TF1 is an average transmittance in a wavelength range of 481 nm to 560 nm of the optical filter, and TS1 is an average transmittance in the wavelength range of 481 nm to 560 nm of the optical filter not including the transmittance control layer, Branda discloses first glass layer 12 (i.e., a substrate equivalent for the optical filter) may be clear or grey with a visible light transmission LTA of 25% to 35% (par. [0086]). Furthermore, Branda presents a light transmission spectrum for grey glass in Fig. 9, where the average transmittance over the claimed wavelength range of 481 to 560 nm is about 44%. In Fig. 1 Branda shows light transmission profiles of one embodiment of the optical filter, in dark and faded states (solid and dashed lines, respectively, par. [0028]), and from Fig. 1 the average transmittance of the optical filter of example 1 of Branda in a faded state, between 481 nm and 560 nm, is about 80%. Therefore, the average transmittance in a wavelength range of 481 nm to 560 nm is TF1 = 0.80 and the transmittance without the variable transmittance layer is TS1 = 0.44, therefore ΔT1 is 81% for at least example 1 of Branda, satisfying the limitation that ΔT1 is 0.5% or more.
With regard to the limitation wherein an absolute value of a difference in a refractive index of the transmittance control layer with respect to a refractive index of the substrate is in a range of 2% to 10%, Branda teaches layer 12 may be glass as disclosed in par. [0084], and Branda in at least par. [0084] lists exemplary materials for layer 12, and Branda further teaches a substrate may comprise glass, plastics, or thermoplastic polymers such as polyesters, polycarbonates, polyamides, polyurethanes, polyacrylonitriles, polyacrylacids, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyolefins (par. [0125]) and Branda further discloses the variable transmittance layer comprises a switchable material (par. [0089]), as well as electrochromic material and photochromic materials (par. [0093]).
Branda does not disclose wherein the transmittance control layer contains 0.01 wt% or less of an absorbent (Branda discloses the variable transmittance layer comprises a switching material, par. [0017], and that a switching material may comprise, by weight percent, 0.1 to about 30 parts of an electrochromic and/or photochromic compound, par. [0096], but does not teach 0.01 w% of an absorbent in the variable transmittance layer) and Branda does not disclose values for the refractive index of the exemplary materials for the substrate or the variable transmittance layer of the optical filter.
In a related field of invention, Schael teaches, in Fig. 4, the refractive index of polyolefin films ranges from 1.46 to 1.52, refer to at least page 2720 thereof. Therefore, Schael provides a value for the refractive index of polyolefin that Branda discloses as a suitable material for the substrate of the disclosed optical filter.
In the same field of invention as Branda, Oyama discloses an electrochromic element, Example 1 of which is illustrated in Fig. 1 thereof, where the electrochromic element 100 has a refractive index of 1.46 (par. [0107] thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Oyama to the disclosure of Branda and used an electrochromic element, such as that taught by Oyama, as the variable transmittance layer in the optical filter of Branda, as such an electrochromic element has high uniformity in visible light transmittance (Oyama, par. [0004]) and since it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious). Refer to MPEP §2144.07.
The prior art combination of Branda, as evidenced by Schael, in view of Oyama, does not disclose wherein the transmittance control layer contains 0.01 wt% or less of an absorbent.
In a related field of invention, Hayes discloses polymer sheets and a laminate comprising at least one layer comprising a polymer sheet (pars. [0013-14] thereof). Hayes teaches the polymer composition may contain an ultraviolet absorber (par. [0036] thereof), where any ultraviolet absorber known in the art would find utility within the polymer sheet, and that the polymer composition preferably incorporates from about 0.001 to about 10.0 weight percent UV absorbers, more preferably 0.001 to 5.0 weight percent, and still more preferably, 0.05 to 1.0 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (par. [0036] thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hayes to the disclosure of Branda and included 0.001 weight percent of any ultraviolet absorber known within the art, because Hayes teaches the polymer composition may incorporate various additives known in the art, such as ultraviolet absorbers (Hayes, par. [0032]).
As such, the prior art combination of Branda, as evidenced by Schael, in view of Oyama and Hayes, teaches an optical filter with an index of refraction of 1.52 for the polyolefin substrate, and an index of refraction of 1.46 for the variable transmittance layer in the form of an electrochromic element as taught by Oyama, and as such the percent difference between the indices of refraction is |1.52 – 1.46|/1.46 × 100 or 4.1%, within the claimed range of 2% to 10%.
Regarding dependent claim 2, the prior art combination of Branda, Schael, Oyama, and Hayes (hereinafter, “modified Branda”) discloses the optical filter of claim 1, and Branda further discloses wherein TF1 in Equation 1 is 80% or more (from Branda Fig. 1 the average transmittance of the optical filter of example 1 of Branda in a faded state, between 481 nm and 560 nm, is 80%).
Regarding dependent claim 3, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 1, and Branda further discloses wherein the substrate is a glass substrate (Branda teaches layer 12 may be glass, par. [0084]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 5, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 1, and Branda further discloses wherein the transmittance control layer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a cyclic olefin polymer resin (COP), polyarylate, polyisocyanate, polyimide, polyetherimide, polyamideimide, polyacrylate, polyester, polysulfone, polysilazane, and polysiloxane (Branda teaches a substrate may comprise glass, plastics, or thermoplastic polymers such as polyesters, par. [0125]).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 1, and Branda as evidenced by Schael teaches wherein the refractive index of the substrate is greater than the refractive index of the transmittance control layer and the refractive index of the substrate is in the range of about 1.48 to 1.6 (Schael teaches in Fig. 4 the refractive index of polyolefin films, i.e., the substrate, ranges from 1.46 to 1.52, refer to at least page 2720 thereof), and Oyama teaches the electrochromic element 100, i.e., the variable transmittance layer equivalent, has a refractive index of 1.46 (par. [0107] thereof), satisfying the limitation.
Regarding amended dependent claim 7, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 1, but the prior art combination does not further disclose wherein the transmittance control layer is formed on both sides of the substrate (Branda, in Figs. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7a-7h, shows sectional views of the various embodiments of the optical filter disclosed, refer to pars. [0075-78], but the variable transmittance layer 14 is not on both sides of substrate 12, and Oyama in at least Fig. 1 thereof illustrates electrochromic element 100 between transparent support substrates 150, par. [0050] thereof, rather than on both sides of substrate 150).
The prior art combination of Branda and Oyama discloses the claimed invention except for the disposition of the variable transmittance layer on both sides of a substrate.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply a variable transmittance layer to both sides of the substrate, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (1977). In this case, the prior art teaches a variable transmittance layer on at least one side of the substrate (refer to Branda Fig. 1), and also teaches an electrochromic element, equivalent to a variable transmittance layer, between two substrates (refer to Oyama Fig. 1). The prior art therefore suggests the disposition of a variable transmittance layer on both sides of one substrate, and a person of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation of success in applying a variable transmittance layer to both sides of substrate because the methodology would be the same for applying a variable transmittance layer to one side of the substrate.
Regarding dependent claim 8, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 1, and Branda further disclose the optical filter further comprising a light absorption layer (Branda teaches the transmission of light in the ultraviolet or infrared may be blocked by absorption by one or more layers in the optical filter, pars. [0108-112]).
Regarding dependent claim 10, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 8, and Branda discloses the optical filter further comprising a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, an adhesive layer, or a primer layer between the light absorption layer and the substrate (Branda discloses an adhesive layer includes a pressure-sensitive adhesive, par. [0075]).
Regarding dependent claim 11, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 10, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the transmittance control layer is located on a surface opposite to the surface of the substrate on which the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, the adhesive layer, or the primer layer is formed (Branda in Fig. 4 illustrates the variable transmittance layer 14 is on the opposite side of adhesive layer 24 from substrate 12, rather than on the opposite side of substrate 12).
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical filter of the prior art combination will still function if the variable transmittance layer is on the opposite side of the substrate from an adhesive layer, and the benefits of this modification include improved manufacturability (Branda, par. [0094]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 10, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein the transmittance control layer is located on a surface opposite to the surface of the light absorption layer on which the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, the adhesive layer, or the primer layer is formed (Branda in Fig. 4 illustrates an exemplary cross-section of the optical filter, but does not disclose the disposition of the variable transmittance layer with respect to a light absorption layer such as the UV-blocking layer of PET).
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of elements without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical filter of the prior art combination will still function if the variable transmittance layer is on a surface opposite to the surface of the light absorption layer on which the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is formed, and the benefits of this modification include improved manufacturability (Branda, par. [0094]).
Regarding dependent claim 14, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 10, and the prior art further discloses wherein a difference in the refractive index of the transmittance control layer (i.e., Oyama electrochromic element 100 has a refractive index of 1.46, par. [0107] thereof) with respect to the refractive index of the substrate (i.e., polyolefin substrate of Branda has n = 1.52 as evidenced by Schael) is in a range of about -2% to -10% (e.g., (1.46 – 1.52)/1.52 × 100 or -3.95%, within the claimed range).
Regarding dependent claim 15, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 10, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the light absorption layer (i.e., UV-blocking layer of PET as taught by Branda in par. [0112]) is in direct contact with the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, the adhesive layer, or the primer layer each other, nor does the prior art combination explicitly disclose the substrate (i.e., polyolefin substrate of Branda) is in direct contact with the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer, the adhesive layer, or the primer layer each other, and the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the transmittance control layer (i.e., the variable transmittance layer of Branda) is in direct contact with the light absorption layer or the substrate.
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical filter of the prior art combination will still function if the light absorption layer is in direct contact with an adhesive layer, and the benefits of this modification include improved manufacturability (Branda, par. [0094]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 16, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 8, and Branda further discloses wherein the light absorption layer comprises a first and a second light absorption layers (Branda discloses one or more layers may comprise a UV blocking component, par. [0125]) but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose the optical filter having light absorption layers having different refractive indices each other (Branda is silent as to the specific refractive indices of the one or more UV blocking components of the optical filter, though Branda does disclose PET as an example of a material suitable for UV blocking layers, par. [0125]), and the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmittance control layer (i.e., variable transmittance layer) is formed on a surface opposite to the surface of the substrate (Branda substrate 12) on which the first light absorption layer is formed (Branda in Fig. 4 illustrates an exemplary arrangement of layers in the optical filter, where variable transmittance layer 14 is on the opposite side of adhesive layer 24 from substrate 12, rather than on the opposite side of substrate 12).
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical filter of the prior art combination will still function if the variable transmittance layer is on the opposite side of the substrate from an adhesive layer, and the benefits of this modification include improved manufacturability (Branda, par. [0094]).
With regard to the limitation of the optical filter having light absorption layers having different refractive indices from each other, Branda does disclose the UV blocking layer may be polyvinyl butyral (PVB) in par. [0112], therefore a person of ordinary skill would find it obvious to use PVB and PET as materials for two different light absorption layers in the optical filter, and the PVB and PET materials have different refractive indices, satisfying the instant limitation.
Regarding dependent claim 17, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim of 16, but the prior art combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmittance control layer is formed on a surface of the second light absorption layer opposite to the surface on which the first light absorption layer is formed (Branda in Fig. 4 illustrates the disposition of the various layers of the optical filter disclosed, but does not specify the arrangement of light absorption layers).
However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical filter of the prior art combination will still function if the variable transmittance layer is on the opposite side of the substrate from an adhesive layer, and the benefits of this modification include improved manufacturability (Branda, par. [0094]).
Regarding amended dependent claim 18, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 16, and Branda further discloses wherein the first light absorption layer has a lower refractive index than the second light absorption layer (Branda discloses the one or more UV blocking layers may be PET or polyvinyl butyral, par. [0112], and the PVB and PET materials have different refractive indices being different materials, therefore the material with the lower refractive index can be selected as the first light absorption layer and the material with the higher refractive index can be selected as the second light absorption layer).
Branda does not disclose the first light absorption layer is located between the second light absorption layer and the substrate. However, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). The rearrangement in this case does not modify the operation of the device because the optical filter of the prior art combination will still function if the first light absorption layer is located between the second light absorption layer and the substrate, and the benefits of this modification include improved manufacturability (Branda, par. [0094]).
Regarding dependent claim 20, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 16, and Oyama further discloses wherein a difference in the refractive index of the transmittance control layer (Oyama electrochromic element has index of refraction n = 1.46) with respect to the refractive index of the substrate (i.e., Branda as evidenced by Schael, a substrate of polyolefin has refractive index n = 1.52) is in a range of about -2% to -10% (i.e., (1.46 – 1.52)/1.52 × 100 or -4%, within the claimed range of about -2% to -10%).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda as evidenced by Schael in view of Oyama and Hayes as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Suetsugu et al. US PGPub 2010/0067101 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Suetsugu”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 3, and Branda discloses wherein the glass substrate contains copper (Branda discloses the optical filter may have conductive material such as copper, par. [0134]), but the prior art combination does not disclose the copper is in an amount of about 10% by weight or less.
In a related field of invention, Suetsugu discloses an optical element with borosilicate glass comprising copper halide comprising from 0.01 weight percent up to 10 weight percent of the glass (par. [0026] thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Suetsugu to the disclosure of Branda and used a glass containing up to 10% by weight of copper halide for the ultraviolet ray-absorbing properties provided by the copper compounds (Suetsugu, par. [0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda as evidenced by Schael in view of Oyama and Hayes as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and as further evidenced by Pohlen US PGPub 2022/0171116 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Pohlen”).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 8, and Schael and Oyama disclose wherein an absolute value of a difference in a refractive index of the light absorption layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate is in a range of about 0.2% to 10% (the prior art combination of Branda, as evidenced by Schael, teaches an optical filter with an index of refraction of 1.52 for the polyolefin substrate, and Branda teaches the use of ultraviolet-blocking polyethylene terephthalate (PET) as a light absorption layer, par. [0112], but Branda does not provide a value for the refractive index of a UV-blocking PET layer).
In a related field of invention, Pohlen discloses a laminated glazing with a core polymer layer 116 of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) having a refractive index of 1.57 to 1.58 (refer to par. [0050] thereof). Therefore Pohlen provides a value for the refractive index of PET that Branda discloses as a suitable material for a light absorption layer in the disclosed optical filter, and the absolute value of a difference in a refractive index of the light absorption layer, i.e., PET with n = 1.57, with respect to the refractive index of the substrate, i.e., polyolefin with n = 1.52, is |1.57 – 1.52|/1.52 × 100 or 3.3%, within the claimed range of about 0.2% to 10%.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda as evidenced by Schael in view of Oyama and Hayes as applied to claims 1, 8, and 10 above, and further in view of Lu et al. US PGPub 2021/0388149 A1 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Lu”).
Regarding dependent claim 13, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 10, and Schael discloses the refractive index of the substrate (Branda discloses a polyolefin substrate and Schael teaches polyolefin with index of refraction of 1.46 to 1.52, refer to at least page 2720 thereof), and Oyama discloses the refractive index of the transmittance control layer (Oyama electrochromic element 100 has a refractive index of 1.46, par. [0107] thereof), but the prior art combination does not disclose values for the refractive index of a pressure-adhesive adhesive layer, adhesive layer, or a primer layer.
In a related field of invention, Lu discloses polyester polyols to be used in pressure-sensitive adhesives (refer to at least abstract and pars. [0041-42] thereof). Lu teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive with a refractive index between 1.4 and 1.7 (par. [0098] thereof).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Lu to the disclosure of Branda and employed pressure-sensitive adhesives taught by Lu to secure layers in the optical filter, because the pressure sensitive adhesive of Lu is suitable for optical applications, being optically clear (Lu, par. [0098]).
With regard to the limitation wherein a difference in a refractive index of the pressure-adhesive adhesive layer, the adhesive layer, or the primer layer (Lu teaches a pressure-sensitive adhesive with a refractive index between 1.4 and 1.7, par. [0098] thereof) with respect to the refractive index of the substrate (i.e., polyolefin substrate of Branda has n = 1.52 as evidenced by Schael) is in a range of about 3% to 10% (i.e., (1.6 – 1.52)/1.52 × 100 or 5.3%, within the claimed range); and a difference in the refractive index of the pressure-sensitive adhesive layer (Lu, pressure-sensitive adhesive with a refractive index between 1.4 and 1.7, par. [0098] thereof), the adhesive layer, or the primer layer with respect to the refractive index of the transmittance control layer (Oyama electrochromic element 100 has a refractive index of 1.46, par. [0107] thereof) is within a range of about 8% to 15% (i.e., (1.6 – 1.46)/1.46 × 100 or 9.6%, within the claimed range).
With regard to the limitation wherein a difference in the refractive index of the light absorption layer (Branda discloses a UV-blocking layer of PET, par. [0112], having a refractive index of 1.57 to 1.58 as taught by Pohlen, refer to par. [0050] thereof) with respect to the refractive index of the substrate (Branda, polyolefin substrate with index of refraction of 1.46 to 1.52 as taught by Schael, refer to at least page 2720 thereof) is in a range of about 0.2% to 2% ((1.57 – 1.52)/1.52 × 100 or 3.3%, outside of the claimed range by at least 50%).
However, Branda also teaches PET as a suitable substrate material for the optical filter (refer to par. [0125]), which has an index of refraction between 1.57 and 1.58 as taught by Pohlen (par. [0050] thereof), and as such, a person of ordinary skill using PET as a substrate and also as a light absorption layer according to the disclosure of Branda, would result in an optical filter with a difference in the refractive index of the light absorption layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate of (1.58 – 1.57)/1.57 × 100 or 0.64%, within the claimed range of about 0.2% to 2%.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Branda as evidenced by Schael in view of Oyama and Hayes as applied to claims 1, 8, and 16 above, and as further evidenced by Pohlen, in view of Teotia, Meenu, and R. K. Soni. "Polymer interlayers for glass lamination-a review." Int. J. Sci. Res.(IJSR) 3 (2014): 1264-1270 (of record, see Office action dated 01/16/2026, hereinafter, “Teotia”).
Regarding amended dependent claim 19, modified Branda discloses the optical filter of claim 16, but the prior art combination is silent as to values of the refractive indices so as to compare the prior art to the limitation wherein a difference in the refractive index of the first light absorption layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate is in a range of about -2% to -10% and a difference in the refractive index of the second light absorption layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate is in a range of about 2% to 10%.
In a related field of invention, Teotia teaches polyvinyl butyral has a refractive index of 1.485 (refer to Table 2 thereof), therefore Teotia teaches a value for the refractive index of PVB that Branda discloses as a suitable material for a light absorption layer in the optical filter (refer to par. [0112] of Branda).
Pohlen teaches polyethylene terephthalate (PET), also a suitable material for a light absorption layer as taught by Branda in par. [0112], has a refractive index of 1.57 to 1.58 (refer to par. [0050] thereof).
Therefore, a difference in the refractive index of the first light absorption layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate (i.e., polyolefin substrate 12, as taught by Branda) is in a range of about -2% to -10% (i.e., (1.485 – 1.52)/1.52 × 100 or -2.3%, within the claimed range of about -2% to -10%).
With regard to the limitation of a difference in the refractive index of the second light absorption layer with respect to the refractive index of the substrate is in a range of about 2% to 10%, PET has a refractive index of 1.57 and polyolefin has a refractive index of 1.52, so (1.57 – 1.52)/1.52 × 100 or 3.3%, within the claimed range of about 2% to 10%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the amended claims establish a structural barrier (0.01 wt% absorbent limit) that renders Branda’s switching layer non-anticipatory and non-obvious. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant has argued that Branda’s switching material requires absorbents to function and that Branda’s material contains at least ten times the amount of absorbent permitted by the amended claim. Examiner respectfully agrees with these facts, and further notes that because Applicant points out that both the optical filter disclosed by Branda and the instant invention rely on absorbents to function as intended, but only the amount of absorbents in each device are different, it would be within the skill of one having ordinary skill to adjust the amount of absorbent, as Branda teaches the examples presented therein are for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention (Branda, par. [0208]).
Second, Applicant has argued that the functional purpose of the layers in the instant invention and the prior art cited are opposite; specifically, Applicant has argued that the present invention’s transmittance control layer is designed to increase visible light transmittance by creating a structure that alleviates interface reflection through destructive interference. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of Applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a structure that alleviates interface reflection through destructive interference) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, the structures claimed have been mapped to the structures, elements, and features disclosed by Branda and, in combination with the other prior art references cited, teaches a device with the same structures and capable of performing the same functions.
Third, Applicant respectfully rebuts the Examiner’s ΔT1 calculation for Branda, and further argues that Branda cannot satisfy the requirement that the layer provides an increase (ΔT1 is 0.5% or more) over the substrate-only baseline. Equation 1 defines TS1 as the transmittance of the optical filter not including the control layer, and Examiner has cited the grey glass light transmission disclosed by Branda in Fig. 9 as the transmittance of the optical filter without the control layer. That is to say, as best understood by the Examiner, the grey glass is the substrate of the optical filter disclosed by Branda, and Fig. 9 of Branda discloses the transmission percentage of the grey glass substrate. In Fig. 1 Branda shows light transmission profiles of one embodiment of the optical filter, in dark and faded states (solid and dashed lines, respectively, par. [0028]), and from Fig. 1 the average transmittance of the optical filter of example 1 of Branda in a faded state, between 481 nm and 560 nm, is about 80%. Therefore, the average transmittance in a wavelength range of 481 nm to 560 nm of the optical filter of Branda is TF1 = 0.80, and the transmittance without the variable transmittance layer, i.e., the grey glass substrate of Branda, is TS1 = 0.44, therefore ΔT1 is 81% for at least example 1 of Branda, satisfying the limitation that ΔT1 is 0.5% or more.
Fourth, Applicant has respectfully argued that Schael lacks any disclosure regarding the design of an optical filter or its constituent layers, nor does it provide any teaching related to absorbents. However, Schael is specifically cited to provide a value for the refractive index of polyolefin that the primary reference Branda discloses as a suitable material for the substrate of the disclosed optical filter, and is not cited to provide any teaching related to absorbents.
Fifth, Applicant has respectfully argued that Oyama fails to disclose the concept of a layer free of absorbents and also provides a “teaching away” from the present invention, and as such a person skilled in the art would not be motivated to remove the functional coloring agents from the essential layers of Oyama. Oyama is cited to teach the electrochromic element 100 disclosed therein has a refractive index of 1.46 (par. [0107] thereof). It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123. In this case, Oyama teaches values for the indices of refraction of material related to optical devices for controlling light by modification of the optical properties of the media, and a person of ordinary skill would look to Oyama for facts and details relevant to the design and production of optical filters.
Regarding claim 13, Applicant has argued that Lu does not teach or suggest the specific three-way refractive index relationship between the substrate, the PSA, and the transmittance control layer required to achieve the claimed of 0.5% or more. However, Lu is cited to teach refractive index values for pressure-sensitive adhesives for use in optical applications, where Branda discloses the use of pressure-sensitive adhesives in par. [0075], therefore Lu provides a specific range of values for pressure-sensitive adhesives that Branda already teaches.
No other arguments were presented after page 4 of Remarks. As such, the prior art teaches the invention as currently claimed.
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 Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights