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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A, claims 1-6, in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 should be depended on claim 2 instead of claim 1 because first and second optical layers and elements nx1, nx2, nz1 and nz2 are cited in claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
See published US 2024/0201427 for better explanation and citation:
Para.5 last three lines “for a second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by at least about 40 degrees, the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers have respective second and third reflection bands, each having a peak reflectance that can be greater than about 40%” which are different and conflict with claim 5 should be “for a second incident angle greater than the first incident angle by at least about 40 degrees, the optical film and the plurality of polymeric third layers have respective second and third reflection bands, each having a peak reflectance that can be greater than about 40%”;
Para.65, lines 1-3, “FIG. 5A is a plot of a reflectance C1 of a multilayer optical film and reflectances L1, M1, and R1 of respective first, second, and third pluralities of polymeric layers for p-polarized light at a first incident angle, according to some embodiments” should be “FIG. 5A is a plot of a reflectance C1 of a multilayer optical film and reflectances L1, M1, and R1 of respective second, first, and third pluralities of polymeric layers for p-polarized light at a first incident angle, according to some embodiments” (see para.67, the plurality of polymeric first layers (e.g., optical reflectance M1, and optical reflectance M2 or M3)); Also, line 9, the phase “reflectance L1 of the first plurality of polymeric layers” should be “reflectance L1 of the second plurality of polymeric layers”;
Para.67, bottom up lines 4 and 5, “the plurality of polymeric second layers has a substantially constant optical reflectance having a standard deviation of less than about 3%” should be “the plurality of polymeric third layers has a substantially constant optical reflectance having a standard deviation of less than about 3%”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim limitations, “The multilayer optical film of claim 1, wherein for the p-polarized incident light and the first incident angle, an optical reflectance versus wavelength of the plurality of polymeric second layers does not comprise a reflection band in the predetermined wavelength range” are considered to be indefinite. The original disclosure such as figs.5A and 7A disclose at the first incident angle, an optical reflectance (R1) versus wavelength of the plurality of polymeric third layers does not comprise a reflection band in the predetermined wavelength range (see fig.5A), the optical reflectance (L1) versus wavelength of the plurality of polymeric second layers does comprise a reflection band (70) in the predetermined wavelength range. Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “The multilayer optical film of claim 3, wherein for the p-polarized incident light and the first incident angle, an optical reflectance versus wavelength of the plurality of polymeric third layers does not comprise a reflection band in the predetermined wavelength range” - -.
Regarding claim 5, the claim limitations, “The multilayer optical film of claim 1, wherein in the predetermined wavelength range and for the p-polarized incident light: for the first incident angle, the optical film has a peak optical reflectance of greater than about 50%, and the plurality of polymeric second layers has a substantially constant optical reflectance having a standard deviation of less than about 3%; and for the second incident angle, the optical film and the plurality of polymeric second layers each has a peak optical reflectance of greater than about 40%” are considered to be indefinite. The original disclosure such as figs.5A, 5B, 7A and 7B disclose in the predetermined wavelength range and for the p-polarized incident light: for the first incident angle, the optical film has a peak optical reflectance of greater than about 50%, and the plurality of polymeric third layers has a substantially constant optical reflectance (R1) having a standard deviation of less than about 3% (see fig.7A); and for the second incident angle, the optical film and the plurality of polymeric third layers each has a peak optical reflectance of greater than about 40% (see fig.7B). Therefore, it is indefinite.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret the above limitation as - - “The multilayer optical film of claim 4, wherein in the predetermined wavelength range and for the p-polarized incident light: for the first incident angle, the optical film has a peak optical reflectance of greater than about 50%, and the plurality of polymeric third layers has a substantially constant optical reflectance having a standard deviation of less than about 3%; and for the second incident angle, the optical film and the plurality of polymeric third layers each has a peak optical reflectance of greater than about 40%” - -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun WO 2019/077547 (use Yun US 2020/0319389 for citation purpose, Machine translation is provided in the previous office action) in view of Kuriki JP 2004138938 (see document 18555741_2026-03-12_JP_2004138938_A_M.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, Yun discloses a multilayer optical film, in at least figs.1-3, comprising a plurality of polymeric first layers (one of “102a or the interference layers of first optical stack 202-2”, or “102b or the interreference layers of first optical stack 202-1”, para.56) numbering at least 10 in total (para.2, 29, 35, 50 and 53) disposed on a plurality of polymeric second layers (the other one of “102a or the interference layers of first optical stack 202-2”, or “102b or the interreference layers of first optical stack 202-1”, para.56) numbering at least 10 in total (para.2, 29, 35, 50 and 53), each of the first and second layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (para.5 and 57), such that in a predetermined wavelength range that is at least about 200 nm wide (para.56, 2 and 29) and is disposed between about 200 nm and about 2000 nm (para.56, 2 and 29), for a p-polarized incident light, and for each of a first incident angle and a second incident angle (para.60 and 61) greater than the first incident angle by at least about 40 degrees (para.60 and 61 discloses it can having high incidence angles too, so that it will be includes the second incident angle great than the first incident angle by at least about 40 degrees as well):
an optical reflectance of each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers versus wavelength comprises a reflection band comprising a left band edge (LBE) at a short wavelength side of the reflection band where the reflectance generally increases with increasing wavelength, and a right band edge (RBE) at a long wavelength side of the reflection band where the reflectance generally decreases with increasing wavelength, such that a separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers and a separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the first incident angle, and a separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers and a separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the second incident angle (These claim limitations is the inherent property of a reflection band of an optical reflectance of each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers versus wavelength).
Yun does not explicitly disclose the separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers is less than the separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the first incident angle, and the separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers is greater than the separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the second incident angle.
Kuriki discloses a multiplayer optical film, in at least figs.1-4 and 7, the separation (the separation between RBEs of Curve C and Curve B in fig.2) between the RBEs of the optical film (see figs.1 and 3) and the first layers (3) is less than the separation (the separation between LBEs of Curve C and Curve B in fig.2) between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the first incident angle (see fig.2), and for the second incident angle, the reflection band for each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers are shifted to a shorter wavelength side (see fig.7) for the purpose of realizing a screen for projection can display a picture of high contrast irrespective of outdoor daylight even if an incident angle of projection light is large and which has a wide angle of view (Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers is less than the separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the first incident angle, for the second incident angle, the reflection band for each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers are shift to a shorter wavelength side as taught by Kuriki in the multilayer optical film of Yun in order to have the separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers is less than the separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the first incident angle, and the separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers is greater than the separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the second incident angle because when incident angle increases to a high incident angle, the reflection band of the first layers is shifted to lower wavelength than the reflection band of the optical film, so that the separation between the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers is greater than the separation between the LBEs of the optical film and the first layers for the second incident angle for the purpose of realizing a screen for projection can display a picture of high contrast irrespective of outdoor daylight even if an incident angle of projection light is large and which has a wide angle of view.
Regarding claim 2, Yun discloses the plurality of polymeric second layers comprises a plurality of alternating first and second optical layers (203a and 206a, or 203 and 206b) comprising respective refractive indices nx1 and nx2 along a same in-plane x-direction, respective refractive indices ny1 and ny2 along an in-plane y-direction orthogonal to the x-direction, and respective refractive indices nz1 and nz2 along a thickness direction of the polymeric second layers orthogonal to the x- and y-directions, wherein for at least one wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range: |ny1−ny2| is less than about 0.02 (para.42); and nz1−nz2 is greater than about 0.03 (para.41 would be 0 to 0.1).
Yun in view of Kuriki does not explicitly disclose |nx1−nx2| is less than about 0.02. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to |nx1−nx2| is less than about 0.02 through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have |nx1−nx2| is less than about 0.02 in the multilayer optical film of Yun in view of Kuriki for the purpose of realizing a screen for projection can display a picture of high contrast irrespective of outdoor daylight even if an incident angle of projection light is large and which has a wide angle of view (Abstract).
Regarding claim 6, Yun discloses the reflection band for each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers comprises a full width at half maximum (FWHM), such that for the first incident angle, at least one of the two FWHMs overlaps the other one of the two FWHMs, and for the second incident angle, wavelengths at the half maximum reflectances along the RBEs of the optical film and the first layers shift to smaller wavelengths by CS and MS, respectively (these claim limiations are intherent property of the reflection band for each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers).
Yun does not explicitly disclose for the first incident angle, at least one of the two FWHMs overlaps at least 50% of the other one of the two FWHMs, and for the second incident angle, CS being less than MS.
Kuriki discloses a multiplayer optical film, in at least figs.1-4 and 7, for the first incident angle, at least one of the two FWHMs overlaps at least 50% of the other one of the two FWHMs (see Curve C and Curve B around 642nm area in fig.2)), and for the second incident angle, the reflection band for each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers are shifted to a shorter wavelength side (see fig.7) for the purpose of realizing a screen for projection can display a picture of high contrast irrespective of outdoor daylight even if an incident angle of projection light is large and which has a wide angle of view (Abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have for the first incident angle, at least one of the two FWHMs overlaps at least 50% of the other one of the two FWHMs, and for the second incident angle, the reflection band for each of the optical film and the plurality of polymeric first layers are shifted to a shorter wavelength side as taught by Kuriki in the multilayer optical film of Yun in order to have at least one of the two FWHMs overlaps at least 50% of the other one of the two FWHMs, and for the second incident angle, CS being less than MS because when incident angle increases to a high incident angle, the reflection band of the first layers is shifted to lower wavelength than the reflection band of the optical film, so that CS being less than MS for the purpose of realizing a screen for projection can display a picture of high contrast irrespective of outdoor daylight even if an incident angle of projection light is large and which has a wide angle of view.
Yun in view of Kuriki does not explicitly disclose CS being less than MS by at least about 10 nm. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to CS being less than MS by at least about 10 nm through routine experimentation and optimization, in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The Applicant has not disclosed that the range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected/significant result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another range. Indeed, it has been held that mere range limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have CS being less than MS by at least about 10 nm in the multilayer optical film of Yun in view of Kuriki for the purpose of realizing a screen for projection can display a picture of high contrast irrespective of outdoor daylight even if an incident angle of projection light is large and which has a wide angle of view (Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (claim 2).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “a plurality of polymeric third layers numbering at least 10 in total, each of the third layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm, the plurality of polymeric third layers comprising a plurality of alternating third and fourth optical layers comprising respective refractive indices nx3 and nx4 along a same in-plane x-direction, respective refractive indices ny3 and ny4 along an in-plane y-direction orthogonal to the x-direction, and respective refractive indices nz3 and nz4 along a thickness direction of the polymeric third layers orthogonal to the x- and y-directions, wherein for at least one wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range, nz4−nz3≥nx4−nx3≥0.02”, along with other claim limitations of claims 2 and 1. Claims 4-5 are depended on claim 3 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Yun WO 2019/077547 in view of Kuriki JP 2004138938, either singularly or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations of “a plurality of polymeric third layers numbering at least 10 in total, each of the third layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm, the plurality of polymeric third layers comprising a plurality of alternating third and fourth optical layers comprising respective refractive indices nx3 and nx4 along a same in-plane x-direction, respective refractive indices ny3 and ny4 along an in-plane y-direction orthogonal to the x-direction, and respective refractive indices nz3 and nz4 along a thickness direction of the polymeric third layers orthogonal to the x- and y-directions, wherein for at least one wavelength in the predetermined wavelength range, nz4−nz3≥nx4−nx3≥0.02”, along with other claim limitations of claims 2 and 1. Claims 4-5 are depended on claim 3 so they are allowable for the same reason.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA X PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7574. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached at (571)272-2286. 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.
/JIA X PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871