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. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior ar t or disclosed by the examiner. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 11-17) in the reply filed on March 9 th , 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 18-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 9 th , 2026. Information Disclosure Statement As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated February 6 th , 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending. 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. Claim s 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Regarding claim 11, the limitation “a multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers transmitting at least 30% of a substantially normally incident light” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear if the overall multilayer optical film must transmit at least 30% (but each layer can transmit different amounts), or if each layer must individually transmit at least 30%. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “the multilayer optical film and plurality of polymeric layers transmit at least some of a substantially normally incident light”. Regarding claims 12-17, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra. 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) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheatley et al. (US 2001/0009714 A1) . Regarding claim 11, Wheatley teaches a multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of polymeric layers transmitting at least 30% of a substantially normally incident light having a first wavelength (See, e.g., layers A, B, C in Fig. 1 and note this limitation is met in light of the 112 rejection above because the film and layers necessarily transmit some light having a wavelength) and polarized along an in-plane first direction of the polymeric layers (See, e.g., paragraph [0045] and Fig. 2 which explain/show that both S and P polarized light is at least partially transmitted at a 0 degree angle of incidence) , each of the polymeric layers having an average thickness of less than about 500 nm (See, e.g., paragraph [0056] which explains this), first, second and third polymeric layers in the plurality of polymeric layers disposed sequentially adjacent to each other (See, e.g., Fig. 1 which shows layers A/B/C disposed sequentially adjacent to each other) and having respective indices of refraction n 1, n2 and n3 along the first direction at the first wavelength and respective average thicknesses dl, d2 and d3 (Note these physical properties are necessarily present) . Wheatley lacks an explicit disclosure wherein n2d2 is within about 40% of m(n1d1 + n3d3), where m is a positive integer. However, this numerical condition corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case this condition directly impacts the transmittance/reflectance of the overall device as well as the thickness/compactness of the device as well as the light path non normally incident light takes through the layers . Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller , 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify this condition for the purpose of optimizing the transmittance/reflectance/compactness/light path of the device among other things . Regarding claim 12, Wheatley teaches the device set forth above and further teaches reflecting at least 50% of the substantially normally incident light having a second wavelength and polarized along the in-plane first direction (See, e.g., Fig. 2) , the second wavelength within about 100 nm of the first wavelength (Note that Fig. 2 shows the two wavelengths to be the same in the bottom right corner) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 13-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 13, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein the plurality of polymeric layers comprises first and second pluralities of optical repeat units (ORUs), each of the ORUs comprising at least two of the polymeric layers, first and second ORUs in the respective first and second pluralities of ORUs comprising the first and third polymeric layers, respectively, the second polymeric layer being the only layer of the multilayer optical film disposed between the first and second pluralities of ORUs. Regarding claims 14-17, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are thus allowable for at least the reasons stated supra. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7559 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:00-11:00 MT . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bumsuk Won can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2713 . 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. /MITCHELL T OESTREICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881