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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 20, 2026 has been entered.
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on July 20, 2026, which has been entered into the file.
By this amendment, the applicant has amended claim 1 and has canceled claim 7.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 remain pending in this application.
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 8-9 are 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.
In light of the amendment to claim 1, the phrase “the color-absorbing films” recited in claims 8 and 9 is confusing and indefinite since it lacks proper antecedent basis from their based claim. This makes the scopes of claims unclear.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the US patent issued to Thelen (PN. 3,423,147) in view of the US patent issued to Torihara et al (PN. 5,694,958).
Claim 1 has been amended to necessitate the new grounds of rejection.
Thelen teaches, with regard to claim 1, a multilayer film (10, Figure 1) covers at least a portion of a base material (12, Figure 1) wherein the multilayer film including color adjusting film that is composed of an oxide layer or a fluoride layer, (such as aluminum oxide, titanium oxide and magnesium fluoride, please see column 3, lines 43-47). It is noted that each of the layer has a refractive index and a physical thickness that imparts an optical phase (based on optical thickness which is a product of the refractive index and physical thickness) to light passes through the layer. The optical phase imparted will create constructive or destructive interference of the light such that only certain wavelength (or color) of the light will pass through. This is the theoretical base of interference filter, which makes each layer a color adjusting layer.
Thelen teaches that the multilayer film includes a first color-adjusting film (C ) having a refractive index of 2.30 (nC) that is more than 2.0, (please see column 3, lines 35-47), a second color-adjusting film (B) having a refractive index of 1.781 (nB) that is more than 1.5 and less than 2.0 and a third color-adjusting film (A) having a refractive index of 1.38, (nA) that is less than 1.5.
These references further do not teach that the multiplayer film and base are constituted as a watch component. But this feature is considered as a recitation of an intended use. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Madham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim 1 has been amended to include the phrase “a third color-adjusting film … and being composed of a material containing at least one selected from the group consisting of AlF3 and BaF2”.
Thelen teaches that the third color-adjusting film (A) may comprise of a magnesium fluoride (MgF2, please see column 1, lines 43-47). But it does not teach explicitly to alternatively comprise material consisting at least one selected from the group consisting of AlF3 and BaF2. Torihara et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a multilayer dielectric mirror (19) comprises high refractive index layers and low refractive index layers, wherein the low refractive index layer material may comprise beside Magnesium fluoride (MgF2) and aluminum fluoride AlF3 and barium fluoride BaF2, (please see column 43, lines 46-65). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Torihara et al to modify the multilayer film to alternatively use art well known and suitable material for forming the third color adjusting film. Since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended used as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The Thelen reference further does not teach explicitly that the multilayer film has a color adjusting film that is formed by dry plating. However, this feature is considered to be product-by-process limitation that is not given patentable wight since it does not affect the final product of the color adjusting film, (please see MPEP 2173.05(P)). Furthermore, it is known in the art that a dry plating or PVD (physical vapor deposition method) very well-known film deposition method in the art. Such is explicitly taught by Torihara et al wherein the dielectric layers or the color adjusting layers of the multilayer layer mirror is deposited by art well-known ion assist deposition method (IAD, please see column 44, lines 1-9), which is known in the art as advanced physical vapor deposition (PVD) dry plating process. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to apply the teachings of Torihara et al to use art well-known dry plating method to form the color adjusting film layer.
With regard to claims 2-4, Thelen teaches that each of the color adjusting films has an optical thickness that measured in relation to a design wavelength of the light, (please see column 1). This reference however does not teach explicitly that the physical thickness of the second color-adjusting film is more than 100 nm or more than 200 nm and the physical thickness of the first and third color-adjusting film have a thickness of 50 nm or more. It also does not teach explicitly that the thickness of the second color-adjusting film is greater than the thickness of the first and third color-adjusting films. Yet, it is known in the art, the optical thickness of each color adjusting layers imparts an optical phase to the light incident upon them and the resulting interference of the phase-imparted lights produces specific spectrum of the light. It is therefore obvious to one skilled in the art to select the specific physical thickness and therefore the optical thickness of the color adjusting films for the benefit of designing the desired optical spectrum of the multilayer film.
With regard to claim 5, Thelen teaches that the first color-adjusting film (C ) is composed of titanium oxide (TiO2, please see column 1, lines 43-47).
With regard to claim 6, Thelen teaches that the second color-adjusting film (B) is composed of aluminum oxide (Al2O3, please see column 1, lines 43-47).
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thelen and Torihara et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent issued to Bradley et al (PN. 6,157,489).
The multilayer film taught by Thelen in combination with the teachings of Torihara et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claims 8 and 9, the claims are rejected under 25 USC 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above. The claims are therefore being examined in the broadest interpretation.
These references do not teach that the component comprises color-absorbing films.
Bradley et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a thin film element has an interference layer structure (30, Figure 2) comprises a pair of absorber layers (32 and 36, Figure 2) that sandwich a dielectric layer (34). The interference layer structure has a property of color shifting characteristics, (please see Figure 2 and column 5, line 66 to column 6, line 34). Bradley et al teaches that the dielectric layer may have a refractive index that is greater than 1.65. Bradley et al teaches that the dielectric layer also has certain layer thickness with regard to design wavelength which means that the dielectric layer has color adjusting property. It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the multilayer film of Thelen to provide a pair of absorber layers to create the interference structure for the benefit of providing interference structure that has color shifting properties.
Bradley et al teaches that the color-absorbing films are composed of a metal layer such as chromium, (please see column 5, line 45). Thelen teaches that the multilayer unit (11, Figure 1 and column 2, lines 48 and 60-65) has a total of 6 layers and in light of the teachings of Bradley et al with additional of a pair of absorber layers, the total number of the layers may be 8 which is less than 10.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thelen, and Torihara et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US patent application publication by Condo et al (US 2002/0039235 A1).
The multilayer film taught by Thelen in combination with the teachings of Torihara et al as described in claim 1 above has met all the limitations of the claims.
With regard to claim 10, Thelen does not teach explicitly a watch to comprise the watch component with the multilayer film. Condo et al in the same field of endeavor teaches a multilayer optical films that may be utilized in a watch, (please see paragraph [0048]). It would then have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the multilayer film accordingly for the benefit of allowing the multilayer film to be utilized in a watch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended claims have been fully considered and they are rejected for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s arguments are mainly drawn to the newly amended features that have been fully addressed in the reasons for rejection set forth above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREY Y CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2309. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9:00AM-4:30PM.
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 B 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.
AUDREY Y. CHANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/AUDREY Y CHANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights