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 in the reply filed on Aug. 4, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-5, 11-15, 19 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.
Claim 3 recites “a second multilayer optical film” in lines 1-2. The claim is not clear as claim 3 depends indirectly from claim 1 which recites “a second multilayer optical film.”
Claim 4 recites “the at least one dyad is a plurality of dyads, optionally wherein the plurality of dyads is two dyads, three dyads…” The phrase “optionally” makes the claim confusing, as the claim recites “a plurality of dyads.”
Claim 5 recites “the at least one inorganic layer” in lines 1-2. The claim is not clear. The Examiner notes the claim was considered for examination purposes as reciting “the at least one inorganic outer layer” as recited in claim 23.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the second multilayer optical film is present” in lines 1-2. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, which recites the second multilayer optical film as an element of the article. The phrase “is present“ in claim 11 is confusing as the second multilayer optical film had been listed as an element of the article.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the second multilayer optical film is present” in lines 1-2. Claim 12 depends from claim 1, which recites the second multilayer optical film as an element of the article. The phrase “is present“ in claim 12 is confusing as the second multilayer optical film had been listed as an element of the article.
Claim 13 recites “each of the first and second optical layers independently has a thickness…” The claim is not clear as it does not specify if it refers to the first and second optical layers of both films or to optical layers of one of the films.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the second multilayer optical film is present” in lines 1-2. Claim 14 depends from claim 1, which recites the second multilayer optical film as an element of the article. The phrase “is present“ in claim 14 is confusing as the second multilayer optical film had been listed as an element of the article.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the second multilayer optical film is present” in lines 1-2. Claim 15 depends from claim 1, which recites the second multilayer optical film as an element of the article. The phrase “is present“ in claim 15 is confusing as the second multilayer optical film had been listed as an element of the article.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the at least one dyad” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrink et al. (US 9945994 B2) (“Hebrink”), in view of Hirose et al. (US 2011/0165394 A1) (“Hirose”) and Lu (US 2009/0032098 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Hebrink discloses a light shielding article (abstr.), comprising a first multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of alternating first and second polymeric optical layers collectively reflecting at an incident light angle at least 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident visible light over a wavelength range from at least 430 nm to 500 nm (col. 2, lines 3-15), the multilayer optical film having a first major surface – implied. Hebrink does not specify an incident light angle as recited in the claim, however, since Hebrink broadly discloses the incident visible light, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the incident light in Hebrink satisfies the range recited in claim 1.
Hebrink is silent with respect to a second multilayer optical film disposed on the first multilayer optical film, the second multilayer optical film comprised of at least a plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers as recited in the claim.
Hirose discloses a light shielding article (abstr.) comprising a second multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively reflecting and absorbing about 95% of ultraviolet light over at least 30 nm wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range of 300-360 nm (0099, Fig. 1). The range of the wavelength overlaps the range recited in claim 1; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Hirose is silent with respect to an incident light angle with respect to the second multilayer optical film, however, since Hirose broadly discloses the incident UV light, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the incident light in Hirose satisfies the range recited in claim 1, for the second multilayer optical film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the first multilayer optical film of Hebrink with the second multilayer optical film as disclosed in Hirose as the optical film of Hirose provides electromagnetic wave shielding for a plasma display and other uses (0001), the optical film of Hirose provided on a polymer layer (abstr., 0063).
The references are silent with respect to the light shielding article transmitting at an incident radio frequency waves as recited in the claim. Lu teaches a UV shielding article (abstr.) comprising layers of anti-reflection coating, wherein the enhanced transmission range can be controlled by the thickness of each individual layer of the coating and/or the ratio of high and low indices (0018). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to obtain the desired transmission at an incident light angle as recited in the claim in the article of Hebrink and Hirose as it is known in the art of UV shielding articles to adjust the transmission range of radio frequency waves.
Regarding claim 8, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hebrink discloses the polymeric optical layers of the first multilayer optical film comprising a fluoropolymer, PET, copolymer of polypropylene, a polyethylene copolymer, poly(methyl methacrylate), polyvinylidene fluoride (col. 5, lines 5-47).
As to claim 9, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hebrink teaches that the polymeric optical layers of the first multilayer optical film comprise a fluoropolymer independently selected from a copolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, vinylidene fluoride, a polyvinylidene fluoride (col. 5, lines 35-47), copolymers of TFE, HFP and ethylene (col. 5, lines 43-44).
With respect to claim 10, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hirose discloses that the first optical layer of the second multilayer optical film comprises at least one of niobium oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, tantalum oxide, zinc oxide (0100), and the second optical layer comprises silicon oxide or aluminum oxide (0100).
Regarding claim 11, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hirose discloses the first optical layer of the second multilayer optical film comprises niobium oxide or titanium oxide, and the second optical layer comprises silicon oxide (0100).
As to claim 12, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hirose discloses a thickness of the second multilayer optical film of 5-1000 nm (0102). The range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 12; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to claim 13, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hirose discloses the thickness of the optical layers of 5-400 nm (0102); the range of thickness overlaps the range recited in claim 13; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). Hebrink does not disclose a specific thickness of the optical layers, but it suggests that a thickness of the layer may be varied to achieve desired protective results (col. 10, lines 2-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the thickness of the first and second optical layers in order to obtain the desired protective results.
Regarding claim 14, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hirose discloses the second multilayer optical film is formed of at least three layers, or at least 5 layers, or at least 7 layers (0102). The range of the total first and second optical layers in the second multilayer optical film overlaps the range recited in claim 14; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
As to claim 15, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hirose discloses a second multilayer optical film comprising a plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively reflecting and absorbing about 95% of ultraviolet light over at least 30 nm wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range of 300-360 nm (0099, Fig. 1). The range of the wavelength overlaps the range recited in claim 15; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05).
Hirose is silent with respect to an incident light angle with respect to the second multilayer optical film, however, since Hirose broadly discloses the incident visible light, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the incident light angle in Hirose satisfies the range recited in claim 15 for the second multilayer optical film.
With respect to claim 16, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hebrink discloses a substrate attached to at least a portion of a second major surface of the first multilayer optical film (col. 2, lines 54-58, col. 12, lines 59-63).
Regarding claim 17, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hebrink discloses an adhesive – element 15 – disposed on the second major surface of the first multilayer optical film (col. 3, lines 54-58, Fig. 1).
As to claim 18, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. The claim describes how the article functions after exposure to a dose of UV light as recited in the claim. Since the references disclose all the elements of the light shielding article as discussed above with respect to claim 1, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the article according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
With respect to claim 19, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hebrink discloses an outer copolymer layer – Hebrink discloses the polymeric optical layers of the first optical film comprising copolymer of polypropylene, a polyethylene copolymer (col. 5, lines 47), the copolymer layer comprising a UV absorber, an antioxidant (col. 3, lines 54-61, col, 8, lines 20-65, col. 9, lines 44-51).
Regarding claim 20, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 19. Hebrink discloses a benzotriazole compound and a triazine compound (col. 8, lines 32-51).
As to claim 21, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Since Hebrink discloses the plurality of alternating first and second polymeric optical layers as discussed above, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that in the light shielding article according to the references the plurality of alternating first and second polymeric optical layers would satisfy the reflection of incident infrared light as recited in claim 21.
With respect to claim 22, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1. Hebrink discloses an electromagnetic emitter attached to the first multilayer optical film (col. 21, lines 49-58).
Claim(s) 23, 24, 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrink, in view of Hirose, Lu and Hebrink et al. (US 9459386 B2) (Hebrink 2”).
With respect to claim 23, Hebrink, Hirose and Lu teach the article of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the article comprising a barrier coating as recited in the claim.
Hebrink 2 discloses multilayer optical films (col. 1, lines 33-67), comprising a barrier coating comprising a dyad comprised of a polymer layer overlaying a first major surface of the multilayer optical film and an inorganic layer overlaying the polymer layer, and an outer polymer layer overlaying the dyad (col. 18, lines 9-44). Barrier coatings are selected so that they provide specific oxygen and water transmission rates, specific for the application (col. 18, lines 9-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form a barrier coating in the article of Hebrink, Hirose and Lu, between the first multilayer optical film and the second multilayer optical film, the barrier coating comprising a dyad comprising a copolymer layer, as Hebrink discloses copolymer layers in the multilayer film, as discussed above, and an inorganic layer overlaying the copolymer layer, and an outer copolymer layer, to provide the desired oxygen and water transmission characteristics to the article.
Regarding claim 24, Hebrink, Hirose, Lu and Hebrink 2 teach the article of claim 23. The claim recites how the article performs when tested. Since the references disclose the article as recited in claim 23, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the article according to the references is capable to perform as intended.
As to claim 3, Hebrink, Hirose, Lu and Hebrink 2 teach the article of claim 23. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form another multilayer optical film as recited in the claim, disposed on the barrier layer, as duplication of parts is of no patternable significance unless new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)).
With respect to claim 4, Hebrink, Hirose, Lu and Hebrink 2 teach the article of claim 23. Hebrink 2 suggests a dyad comprising a plurality of dyads (col. 18, lines 34-44).
Regarding claim 5, Hebrink, Hirose, Lu and Hebrink 2 teach the article of claim 23. Since the inorganic layers of the second multilayer optical film comprise niobium oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon nitride, tantalum oxide, zinc oxide, silicon oxide or aluminum oxide (Hirose, 0100) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inorganic outer layer of the barrier coating comprises one or more of these materials.
As to claim 6, Hebrink, Hirose, Lu and Hebrink 2 teach the article of claim 23. Hebrink discloses the polymeric optical layers of the first multilayer optical film comprising a fluoropolymer, olefinic copolymer (col. 5, lines 5-47). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form each copolymer layer in the at least one dyad of a fluoropolymer or an olefinic polymer as the first multilayer optical layer may comprise a fluoropolymer or an olefinic polymer.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
