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 Invention I (Claims 21-23) in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4/24/2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e).
Drawings
The originally filed drawings were received on 2/19/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 16, line 2; Claim 18, lines 1 and 2; Claim 20, line 2; Claim 21, line 1; and Claim 23, line 2 all variously recite the limitations ‘coextruded’ and/or ‘co-stretched’. These limitations are believed to be process limitations that do not impart any recognizable distinguishing characteristic to the final product.
“Process limitations cannot impart patentability to product claim where product is not patentably distinguished over prior art.” In re Dike, 157 USPQ 581 (CCPA 1968).
It is well-settled that the “[p]resence of process limitations in product claims, which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to that product.” In re Stephens, 345 F.2d 1020 (CCPA 1965), 145 USPQ 565, citing Dilnot. See also MPEP 2113. Thus, these limitations have not been given significant patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 21, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsunemori (CN 101295161 A).
Tsunemori discloses a film (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-3) comprising a plurality of coextruded (See Section 7 above) polymeric layers (See for example 3, 4, 5, 6 in Figures 1-3) extending along a length direction of the film, the plurality of polymeric layers comprising a birefringent first layer (See for example one of 3, 6 in Figures 1-3; Page 15, Paragraphs 4-5 to Page 16, Paragraphs 1-2, use of polycarbonate plastic which exhibits a small amount of birefringence; Page 5, Paragraph 8-Page 5, Paragraphs 1-3) and a second layer (See for example 4, 5 in Figures 1-3) disposed on the first layer, the second layer having opposing first and second major surfaces separated along a thickness direction of the film and comprising adjacent first (See for example 5 in Figures 1-3) and second portions (See for example 4 in Figures 1-3) extending between the first and second major surfaces and being substantially coextensive with the second layer along the length direction, the first and second portions having different compositions (Elements 4 and 5 necessarily comprise different compositions such that holograms can only be recorded in element 4 in Figures 1-3). Tsunemori further discloses the second layer further comprises a third portion (See for example 5 in Figures 1-3) extending between the first and second major surfaces and being substantially coextensive with the first layer along the length direction of the film, the first and third portions (See for example 5 in Figures 1-3) separated along a width direction of the film and disposed adjacent respective opposing first and second lateral edges of the second layer, the width direction being orthogonal to the length and thickness directions, the second portion (See for example 4 in Figures 1-3) disposed between and contacting the first and third portions, the second portion extending substantially uniformly over a width W0 along the width direction of the film, the first layer having an average thickness T, the first, second, and third portions comprising respective first, second, and third compositions, the second composition different from each of the first and third compositions (Elements 4 and 5 necessarily comprise different compositions such that holograms can only be recorded in element 4 in Figures 1-3); and a plurality of alternating first (See for example 7 in Figure 3) and second (See for example 9 in Figure 3) optical layers disposed on, and coextruded (See Section 7 above) with, the plurality of polymeric layers.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16-18, 20, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunemori.
Tsunemori discloses a film (See for example Abstract; Figures 1-3) comprising a first layer (See for example 4, 5 in Figures 1-3) having opposing first and second major surfaces separated along a thickness direction of the film, the first layer comprising coextruded (See Section 7 above) first (See for example 5 in Figures 1-3), second (See for example 4 in Figures 1-3) and third (See for example 5 in Figures 1-3) portions extending between the first and second major surfaces and being substantially coextensive with the first layer along a length direction of the film, the first and third portions separated along a width direction of the film and disposed adjacent respective opposing first and second lateral edges of the first layer, the width direction being orthogonal to the length and thickness directions, the second portion disposed between and contacting the first and third portions, the second portion extending substantially uniformly over a width W0 along the width direction of the film, the first layer having an average thickness T, the first, second, and third portions comprising respective first, second, and third compositions, the second composition different from each of the first and third compositions (Elements 4 and 5 necessarily comprise different compositions such that holograms can only be recorded in element 4 in Figures 1-3). Tsunemori further discloses the width W0 (See for example 4 in Figures 1-3) is greater than half of a width W1 (See width of combined 4 and 5 in Figures 1-3) of the film along the width direction; a birefringent second layer (See for example one of 3, 6 in Figures 1-3; Page 15, Paragraphs 4-5 to Page 16, Paragraphs 1-2, use of polycarbonate plastic which exhibits a small amount of birefringence; Page 5, Paragraph 8-Page 5, Paragraphs 1-3) coextruded (See Section 7 above) and co-stretched (See Section 7 above) with the first layer; and a plurality of alternating first (See for example 7 in Figure 3) and second (See for example 9 in Figure 3) polymeric layers disposed on, and coextruded (See Section 7 above) with, the first layer. Tsunemori discloses the invention as set forth above, except for W0/T > 100. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have W0/T > 100, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to have W0/T > 100, to increase the area over which holograms can be recorded in the hologram recording material, thus increasing the holographic storage of the film. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 19 is allowable over the cited art of record for at least the reason that the cited art of record fails to teach or reasonably suggest a film as generally set forth in Claims 16, 19, the film including, in combination with the features recited in Claims 16, 19, the first and second portions having different bond strengths with the second layer, each of the first and second portions having a bond strength with the third layer greater than each of the different bond strengths with the second layer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2009/0233026 A1 to Akiyama et al.- Laminated and molded body obtained by extruding and molding two different resin materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARNEL C LAVARIAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2315. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 AM-7 PM.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
ARNEL C. LAVARIAS
Primary Examiner
Group Art Unit 2872
5/13/2026
/ARNEL C LAVARIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights