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 Specification in the submission filed 4/5/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
The amendments to Claim 1 in the submission filed 4/20/2026 are acknowledged and accepted.
Cancellation of claims 14-20 is acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 21-27 are acknowledged and accepted as the subject matter of the claims is similar to the subject matter of the originally filed claims.
Pending Claims are 1-13, 21-27.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 4/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (Remarks, filed 4/20/2026) have been considered, but, respectfully, are not found persuasive.
Re: Claim 1:
a) Nemchuk discloses a light emitting device. A lens could be only an external component of the light-emitting device and is not integrated with the light-emitting device (paragraph [0047] of Nemchuk). Therefore, Nemchuk does not teach or suggest a laminate of an optical lens comprising a wire grid polarizer.
Claim 1 recites “optical lens” in the preamble and not in the body of the claim. The preamble appears to be reciting the purpose or intended use of the laminate and the intended use does not result in a structural difference of the laminate or wire grid polarizer.
A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951).
b) The protective transparent film in Nemchuk is deposited only on the reflective structures 144 and 145 of the wire grid which are directly deposited on surface 1030. Such wire grid structure of Nemchuk does not disclose a high refractive index absorptive layer deposited first on the substrate.
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 high refractive index absorptive layer deposited first on the substrate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Hence, in view of the above arguments, the restriction is proper.
Claims 1-13, 21-27 are rejected as follows:
Drawings
The drawings with 28 Sheets of Figs. 1-35 received on 4/5/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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) 1,9-11,21,27, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sales et al (US 2004/0125449) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0094438).
Regarding Claim 1, Sales teaches (fig 2,3) a laminate (“the grid polarizer of the instant invention is comprised of a plurality of stacked materials (metal and dielectric) arranged as part of the repetition grid or as homogenous layers”, para 31) for an optical lens, comprising:
a wire grid polarizer (grid polarizer 300, para 31) having at least one high refractive index material layer (dielectric layer 330, para 31) and a low refractive index metal layer (metallic layer 320, para 31);
the wire grid polarizer further comprises a mirror layer (metallic layer 340, para 31) on a top surface of the wire grid polarizer (grid polarizer 300, para 31);
wherein, a backside reflection of the wire grid polarizer is below 6% (“The present invention thus provides a grid polarizer that suppresses the highly reflective component of the electromagnetic radiation while maintaining high transmission of the orthogonal polarization component”, para 38, “The expression for Ir demonstrates and confirms that the multilayer grid configuration of the present invention leads to total suppression of the incident TE polarization”, para 47) and
However, Sales does not teach
a transparent film is laminated on the mirror layer of the wire grid polarizer;
and the mirror layer is configured to be protected by the transparent film.
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 5)
a transparent film (first protection film 21C, para 102) is laminated on the mirror layer (reflection layer 12, para 99) of the wire grid polarizer;
and the mirror layer (reflection layer 12, para 99) is configured to be protected by the transparent film (first protection film 21C, para 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the transparent film of Takada for the purpose of improving durability (para 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 1.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the wire grid polarizer comprises at least one high refractive index material layer having a refractive index of greater than 3.
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 1)
wherein the wire grid polarizer comprises at least one high refractive index material layer (absorption layer 13, para 47, made of a semiconductor material, Ge, para 47, Ge has a refractive index greater than 3, see current Spec) having a refractive index of greater than 3.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the high refractive index material layer of Takada for the purpose of obtaining a high extinction ratio with respect to the visible range applied (para 47).
Regarding Claim 10, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 9.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the at least one high refractive index material layer having the refractive index of greater than 3 comprises a germanium layer.
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 1)
wherein the at least one high refractive index material layer (absorption layer 13, para 47, made of a semiconductor material, Ge, para 47, Ge has a refractive index greater than 3, see current Spec) having the refractive index of greater than 3 comprises a germanium layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the high refractive index material layer of Takada for the purpose of obtaining a high extinction ratio with respect to the visible range applied (para 47).
Regarding Claim 11, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 10.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the germanium layer has a thickness of about 20 nm.
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 1)
wherein the germanium layer (absorption layer 13, para 47, made of a semiconductor material, Ge, para 47, Ge has a refractive index greater than 3, see current Spec) has a thickness of about 20 nm (10 nm to 100 nm, para 49).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the high refractive index material layer with thickness of Takada for the purpose of obtaining a high extinction ratio with respect to the visible range applied (para 47).
Regarding Claim 21, Sales teaches a (fig 2,3) a laminate (“the grid polarizer of the instant invention is comprised of a plurality of stacked materials (metal and dielectric) arranged as part of the repetition grid or as homogenous layers”, para 31) for an optical lens, comprising:
a wire grid polarizer (grid polarizer 300, para 31) comprising a surface (surface of metallic layer 320, para 31) and a high refractive index material layer (dielectric layer 330, para 31) is deposited on the surface, and
a low refractive index metal layer (metallic layer 340, para 31) is deposited on the high refractive index material layer (dielectric layer 330, para 31);
wherein the low refractive index metal layer (metallic layer 340, para 31) appears as a mirror (metallic materials are reflective); and
wherein the high refractive index material layer (dielectric layer 330, para 31) comprising a high absorbance of incident light faces a wearer's eye to reduce a backside reflection of the wire grid polarizer below 6% (“The present invention thus provides a grid polarizer that suppresses the highly reflective component of the electromagnetic radiation while maintaining high transmission of the orthogonal polarization component”, para 38, “The expression for Ir demonstrates and confirms that the multilayer grid configuration of the present invention leads to total suppression of the incident TE polarization”, para 47).
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the low refractive index metal layer is laminated with a transparent film;
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 5)
wherein the low refractive index metal layer (reflection layer 12, para 99) is laminated with a transparent film (first protection film 21C, para 102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the transparent film of Takada for the purpose of improving durability (para 6).
Regarding Claim 27, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 1.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the mirror layer laminated with the transparent film is a silver mirror layer.
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 5)
wherein the mirror layer (reflection layer 12, para 99) laminated with the transparent film (first protection film 21C, para 102) is a silver mirror layer (“For example, a single element such as Al, Ag”, para 46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mirror layer of Sales to comprise Silver as of Takada for the purpose of using common metals for improving durability (para 6).
Claim(s) 2-8,22-24, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sales et al (US 2004/0125449) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0094438) and further in view of McCabe et al (US 10,976,574).
Regarding Claim 2, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 1.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the transparent film is a colored transparent film.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
wherein the transparent film is a colored transparent film (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored film of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement (col 64).
Regarding Claim 3, Sales-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate of claim 2.
wherein when the mirror layer (metallic layer 340, para 31, Sales) is laminated with the colored transparent film (layer in 710 which has photochromic property, col 64,lines 16-23, McCabe), the optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
provides a colored mirror appearance to a viewer (Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and {the optical element will have a colored mirror appearance. See MPEP § 2112.01)
Regarding Claim 4, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 1.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the transparent film is a functional film containing at least one photochromic compound.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
wherein the transparent film is a functional film containing at least one photochromic compound (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored film of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement (col 64).
Regarding Claim 5, Sales-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate of claim 4.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the functional film containing at least one photochromic compound is an adhesive.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
wherein the transparent film containing at least one photochromic compound (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23) is an adhesive (“other layers within the laminate 710, reduce stresses within the laminate 710, or improve bonding or adhesion among the layers in the laminate 710 and/or between the laminate 710 and the lens body 708”, col 64, lines 23-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored adhesive of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement and improving bonding among layers (col 64).
Regarding Claim 6, Sales-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate of claim 5.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the adhesive is a polyurethane adhesive.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 54, 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
wherein the adhesive is a polyurethane adhesive (“the laminate can include multiple layers of film, where each film layer includes polycarbonate, PET, polyethylene, acrylic, nylon, polyurethane, polyimide, BoPET, another film material, or a combination of materials”, col 64, lines 11-15, similarly, “the lens body 504 can incorporate a green chroma enhancement dye and at least one of the polyurethane adhesive layers 514 or 516 can incorporate blue, yellow, and red chroma enhancement dyes”, col 50, lines 38-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored adhesive of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement and improving bonding among layers (col 64).
Regarding Claim 7, Sales-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate of claim 2.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the wire grid polarizer shows different intensities of transmitted and reflected colors when the transparent film is the colored transparent film.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 54, 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
wherein the optical lens shows different intensities of transmitted and reflected colors (“The chroma-enhancing optical filter can be configured to preferentially transmit or attenuate light in any desired chroma enhancement windows. Any suitable process can be used to determine the desired chroma enhancement windows. For example, the colors predominantly reflected or emitted in a selected environment can be measured, and a filter can be adapted to provide chroma enhancement in one or more spectral regions corresponding to the colors that are predominantly reflected or emitted.”, col 11, lines 44-52) when the transparent film is the colored transparent film (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored adhesive of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement and improving bonding among layers (col 64).
Regarding Claim 8, Sales-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate of claim 7.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein an intensity of a reflected color is higher than an intensity of a transmitted color.
However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The ratio of the intensity of a reflected and transmitted light colors can be in a range of values. An increase in intensity of reflected color results in very few colors being visible in the object from the backside but makes it confusing for viewer. A decrease in reflected light color intensity increases clarity but makes the image unclear. Therefore, the ratio of intensities of reflected and transmitted light is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the n intensity of a reflected color is higher than an intensity of a transmitted color according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving target image clarity with color enhancement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the intensities of the transmitted and reflected light. One would have been motivated to have the intensity of a reflected color higher than an intensity of a transmitted color to have an optimal color image balancing a desired effectiveness of clarity and accurate color depiction.
Regarding Claim 22, Sales-Takada teach the laminate for the optical lens of claim 21.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the low refractive index metal layer laminated with the transparent film with an adhesive.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50),
wherein layers are laminated with the transparent film (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23) with an adhesive (“other layers within the laminate 710, reduce stresses within the laminate 710, or improve bonding or adhesion among the layers in the laminate 710 and/or between the laminate 710 and the lens body 708”, col 64, lines 23-29).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored adhesive of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement and improving bonding among layers (col 64).
Regarding Claim 23, Sales-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate for the optical lens of claim 22.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the adhesive is a polyurethane adhesive containing at least one photochromic compound.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50),
wherein the adhesive (“other layers within the laminate 710, reduce stresses within the laminate 710, or improve bonding or adhesion among the layers in the laminate 710 and/or between the laminate 710 and the lens body 708”, col 64, lines 23-29) is a polyurethane adhesive (“the laminate can include multiple layers of film, where each film layer includes polycarbonate, PET, polyethylene, acrylic, nylon, polyurethane, polyimide, BoPET, another film material, or a combination of materials”, col 64, lines 11-15, similarly, “the lens body 504 can incorporate a green chroma enhancement dye and at least one of the polyurethane adhesive layers 514 or 516 can incorporate blue, yellow, and red chroma enhancement dyes”, col 50, lines 38-45) containing at least one photochromic compound (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the photochromic adhesive of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement and improving bonding among layers (col 64).
Regarding Claim 24, Sales-Takada teach the laminate for the optical lens of claim 21.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the transparent film is a colored transparent film.
Sales and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50)
wherein the transparent film is a colored transparent film (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the colored film of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement (col 64).
Claim(s) 12,13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sales et al (US 2004/0125449) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0094438) and further in view of Chiu et al (US 2021/0255487).
Regarding Claim 12, Sales-Takada teach the laminate of claim 1.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the laminate is protected by at least one additionally protective layer.
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Chiu teaches (fig 1)
wherein the laminate (laminate of wire grid polarizer, para 33) is protected by at least one additionally protective layer (“the polarizing filter may include one or more protective or functional layers”, para 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the additional protective layer of Chiu for the purpose of obtaining additional protection (para 33).
Regarding Claim 13, Sales-Takada-Chiu teach the laminate of claim 12.
However, Sales does not teach
wherein the at least one additionally protective layer is a polycarbonate layer.
Sales and Chiu are related as wire grid polarizers.
Chiu teaches
wherein the at least one additionally protective layer (“the polarizing filter may include one or more protective or functional layers”, para 33) is a polycarbonate layer (“the protective layer may include polycarbonate (PC) protective layer”, para 33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Sales to include the additional protective layer of a polycarbonate of Chiu for the purpose of obtaining additional protection (para 33).
Claim(s) 25,26, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielson et al (US 2021/0033767) in view of Takada et al (US 2019/0094438) and further in view of McCabe et al (US 10,976,574).
Regarding Claim 25, Nielson teaches (fig 9e) a laminate for an optical lens comprising:
a wire grid polarizer (polarizer 90e, para 51) having a coating stack comprising a low refractive index metal layer (reflective rib 91, para 51) being sandwiched between two high refractive index material layers (pair of dielectric ribs 92, para 51) having a high absorbance (“The absorptive rib elements can include any combination of C, Ge, Si, and Ta”, para 68), is disposed on a substrate (substrate 11); and
wherein the optical element comprises a front surface and a back surface reflection below 6% (“The present invention thus provides a grid polarizer that suppresses the highly reflective component of the electromagnetic radiation while maintaining high transmission of the orthogonal polarization component”, para 38, “The expression for Ir demonstrates and confirms that the multilayer grid configuration of the present invention leads to total suppression of the incident TE polarization”, para 47) and
However, Nielson does not teach
a transparent film is laminated on a front surface of the wire grid polarizer;
Sales and Takada are related as wire grid polarizers.
Takada teaches (fig 5)
a transparent film (first protection film 21C, para 102) is laminated on a front surface of the wire grid polarizer;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Nielson to include the transparent film of Takada for the purpose of improving durability (para 6)
However, Nielson does not teach
an optical lens with a polarizer and wherein the transparent film is a colored transparent film.
Nielson and McCabe are related as laminate optical elements.
McCabe teaches (fig 57,57A,58,58A) a laminate (laminate 710, col 58) for an optical lens (lens 702a, col 58, lines 45-50),
comprising a polarizer (laminate 710 can include a polarizing layer, col 62, lines 11-12) and
wherein the transparent film is a colored transparent film (“one or more layers in the laminate 710 can provide optical properties to the lenses 702a, 702b such as optical filtering, polarization, photochromism, electrochromism, partial reflection of incoming visible light, chroma enhancement, color enhancement, color alteration, or any combination of these”, col 64, lines 16-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire grid of Nielson to include the colored film of McCabe for the purpose of color enhancement (col 64).
Regarding Claim 26, Nielson-Takada-McCabe teach the laminate for the optical lens of claim 25.
However, Nielson does not teach
wherein the high refractive index material layers comprise a first thickness of about 16-36 nm and
the low refractive index metal layer comprises a second thickness of about 10-30 nm in the coating stack of the wire grid polarizer of the optical lens.
However, 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, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). The thickness of the high and low refractive index layers can be in a range of values. An increase in thickness results in pronounced optical effects but makes the device bulky. A decrease in thickness results in less pronounced optical effects but makes the device compact and reduces energy loss. Therefore, the thickness of the high and low refractive index layers is a result effective variable.
One would have chosen the thickness of the high refractive index layer to be 16-36 nm and low refractive index layer to be 10-30 nm according to a result effective variable balancing the need to improving optical effects with optical device becoming bulky.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thicknesses of the high and low refractive index layers. One would have been motivated to have the thicknesses to be in the claimed range to have an optimal thickness balancing a desired effectiveness of device size and desired image quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (US 2012/0206678 A1) teaches a polarizer with low refractive index metallic layers sandwiching a high refractive index layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-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, 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights