DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a reply filed 2/26/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
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 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US6967778 of record, see IDS dated 5/19/2024) in view of Ye et al. (20210263205).
Regarding claim 1, Wheatley teaches a notched filter (Wheatley, figs.1-13, col.11, lines 6-10, Band Pass Filters, The fabrication of narrow bandpass transmission filters, sometimes referred to as notch filters) comprising:
a multilayer (figs.1-5, and 10-13) comprising alternating first and second polymer layers (see fig.10a, first and second polymer layers has been referred as low index, and high index layers; col.3, lines 6-10, “FIGS. 4a and 4b are schematic diagrams of a multilayer film consisting of two alternating polymeric layers”; “FIG. 5 is a 3-dimensional schematic diagram of an optical repeating unit consisting of two alternating layers of polymeric materials”; col.2, lines 25-30, “the optical repeating units R1 and R2 each comprise at least a first polymeric layer and a Second polymeric layer, Said first and Second polymeric layers having associated with them an index of refraction n1 and n2”), the first polymer layers (Wheatley, the low index of the layer) each comprising an isotropic polymer thin film (Wheatley, col.12, lines 41-44, “The polymeric layers of an optical repeating unit in accordance with the present invention can be isotropic or anisotropic”) having in-plane refractive indices n1x and n1y, and the second polymer layers (Wheatley, the high index of the layer) each comprising an anisotropic polymer thin film (Wheatley, col.12, lines 41-44, “The polymeric layers of an optical repeating unit in accordance with the present invention can be isotropic or anisotropic”) having in-plane refractive indices n2x and n2y (Wheatley, col.12, lines 41-44, “The polymeric layers of an optical repeating unit in accordance with the present invention can be isotropic or anisotropic”; col.13, lines 54-63, FIG. 5 shows an optical repeating unit 100 consisting of two polymeric layers, and indicates the three-dimensional indices of refraction for each layer. The indices of refraction are n1X, n1y, and n1Z for layer 102, and n2X, n2y, and n2Z for layer 104, respectively. The relationships between the indices of refraction in each film layer to each other and to those of the other layers in the film stack determine the reflectance behavior of the multilayer Stack at any angle of incidence, from any azimuthal direction; col.5, lines 36-45, an index of refraction along a particular axis is referred to as ni, wherein i indicates the particular axis, for example, nx, indicates an index of refraction along the x-axis, In-plane axes: two mutually perpendicular axes that are in the plane of the reflective film. For the sake of convenience, they are denoted as the x-axis and the y-axis), wherein a thickness (fig.10a, the thickness of low index) of each successive first polymer layer (fig.10a, low index layer) and a thickness (fig.10a, the thickness of high index) of each correspondingly successive second polymer layer (fig.10a, high index layer) change asynchronously throughout the multilayer (see fig.10a, the thickness of each successive first polymer layer, and a thickness of each correspondingly successive second polymer layer change asynchronously throughout the multilayer).
But Wheatley does not explicitly disclose wherein a thickness of each successive first polymer layer and a thickness of each correspondingly successive second polymer layer change non-linearly throughout the multilayer.
However, Ye teaches the analogous Polymer thin films (Ye, abstract, “A polymer thin film is characterized by a first in-plane refractive index (nx) along a first direction of the polymer thin film, a second in-plane refractive index (ny) along a second direction of the polymer thin film orthogonal to the first direction,”.), and further teaches wherein a thickness of each successive first polymer layer and a thickness of each correspondingly successive second polymer layer change non-linearly and asynchronously throughout the multilayer (Ye, paragraph [0036], “That is, a multilayer architecture may be characterized by an internal thickness gradient where the thickness of individual primary and secondary polymer layers within each successive pair changes continuously throughout the stack”, thus, Ye teaches wherein a thickness of each successive first polymer layer –"the thickness of individual primary”-- and a thickness of each correspondingly successive ---“within each successive pair changes continuously” --- second polymer layer ---“ secondary polymer layers”--- change non-linearly –“an internal thickness gradient”--- and asynchronously ---“the thickness of individual primary and secondary polymer layers”--- throughout the multilayer ---“ throughout the stack”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Wheatley to have the specific processing of position as taught by Ye for the purpose of/to improved performance for gratings, retarders, compensators, reflective polarizers, etc. that incorporate such thin films (Ye, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 3, combination Wheatley-Ye discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Wheatley further teaches wherein |n1x−n1y|<0.1 (0.05; Wheatley, col.12, lines 60-64, at least one of the two alternating polymeric layers is a birefringent layer wherein at least one of the in-plane indices nx and ny differs by at least 0.05 from the corresponding in-plane index of refraction of the other layer), n2y >1.4 (1.75; col.10, lines 60-62, a high index material n=1.75), and |n2x−n2y|>0.01 (> 0.05; Wheatley, col.12, lines 60-64, at least one of the two alternating polymeric layers is a birefringent layer wherein at least one of the in-plane indices nx and ny differs by at least 0.05 from the corresponding in-plane index of refraction of the other layer).
Regarding claim 4, combination Wheatley-Ye discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Wheatley further teaches wherein n2y>1.7 (col.10, lines 60-62, a high index material n=1.75), and |n2x−n2y|>0.01 (> 0.05; Wheatley, col.12, lines 60-64, at least one of the two alternating polymeric layers is a birefringent layer wherein at least one of the in-plane indices nx and ny differs by at least 0.05 from the corresponding in-plane index of refraction of the other layer).
Regarding claim 5, combination Wheatley-Ye discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Wheatley further teaches the multilayer is configured to reflect a band of incident light with a relative intensity of less than approximately 90% (Wheatley teaches the multilayer is configured to reflect a band of incident light with a relative intensity of less than approximately 90%; see col.4, lines 58-67 and col.5, lines 1-4, bandedge slope of pass band: Band edge slopes are calculated from the two points on a given bandedge nearest the maximum transmission point, the transmission values of which are 50 and 10 percent of the maximum transmission value. In one preferred embodiment, the passband has low transmission regions on both sides of the transmission peak with transmission minima of 10 percent or less of the transmission value of the peak transmission point. For example, in this preferred embodiment, a pass band having: a 50 percent transmission maximum, would be bounded on both sides by reflectance bands having 5 percent or lower transmission minima. More preferably, the transmission minima on both sides of the passband are less than 5 percent of the peak transmission value of the passband).
Regarding claim 6, combination Wheatley-Ye discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Wheatley further teaches wherein the multilayer is configured to reflect a band of incident light with a relative intensity of approximately 100% (Wheatley, col.4, lines 58-67 and col.5, lines 1-4, the transmission minima on both sides of the passband are less than 5 percent of the peak transmission value of the passband---means the multilayer is configured to reflect a band of incident light with a relative intensity of approximately 100%).
Regarding claim 8, combination Wheatley-Ye discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Wheatley further teaches wherein the multilayer is configured to transmit a band of incident light with a transmitted bandwidth of less than approximately 100 nm (see fig.12, transmit the band of incident light with a transmitted bandwidth is about 45 nm).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US6967778 of record, see IDS dated 5/19/2024) in view Ye et al. (US20210263205), and further in view of Weber et al. (US20090323180).
Regarding claim 7, combination Wheatley-Ye discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Wheatley does not explicitly teach wherein the multilayer is configured to reflect a band of incident light with a reflected bandwidth of less than approximately 100 nm.
However, Weber teaches the analogous optical filter of multilayer (Weber, figs.1-49, abstract, multilayer optical films having one or more reflection bands are provided. The films include alternating polymeric layers configured to selectively reflect and transmit visible light at a design angle of incidence; paragraph [0169] “If desired for some applications, a discontinuity in optical thickness can be incorporated between the two stacks to give rise to a simple notch transmission band spectrum”), and further teaches wherein the multilayer (Weber’s claim 1, a multilayer optical film comprising alternating polymeric layers configured to selectively reflect and transmit visible light at a design angle of incidence) is configured to reflect a band of incident light with a reflected bandwidth of less than approximately 100 nm (Weber’s claim 1 and claim 11, a multilayer optical film comprising alternating polymeric layers configured to selectively reflect and transmit visible light at a design angle of incidence; the film of claim 1, wherein the first and second visible reflection bands have bandwidths of about 50 nm or less ).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness or material of Wheatley to reflect a band of incident light with a reflected bandwidth of less than approximately 100 nm as taught by Weber for the purpose to advantageously utilize the high spectral reflectivity and angular selectivity of the film (Weber, paragraphs [0023]-[0025]).
Response to argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references or portions of the reference being used in the current rejections.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights