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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim 7 is objected to for containing allowable subject matter.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 1/13/2025 and 5/22/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 16 October 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 and 8-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,147,066. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Regarding claim 1, US 12,147,066 claims an optical stack (claim 1, line 1) comprising: a substrate (claim 1, line 2); a radio-wave anti-reflection sheet configured to reduce reflection from the optical stack of radio waves emitted from a transmitter at a predetermined operating frequency (claim 1, lines 3-6); and a multilayer optical film disposed between the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the substrate (claim 1, lines 7-8), wherein for radiation substantially normally incident on the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet such that at least a portion of the radiation is transmitted through each of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet, the multilayer optical film, and the substrate; and for a first frequency range centered on the predetermined operating frequency and disposed between about 1 GHz and about 120 GHz: a return loss of the optical stack is asymmetric about the predetermined operating frequency in the first frequency range; and the optical stack has a largest return loss S11L in the first frequency range of less than -10 dB and a difference between the largest return loss S11L and a smallest return loss S11S in the first frequency range is less than about 2 dB (Claim 1, lines 18-33).
Regarding claim 2¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
US 12,147,066 also claims that the first frequency range is at least 20 GHz wide (see claim 1, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 3¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
US 12,147,066 also claims that the smallest return loss S11S occurs at a frequency different from the predetermined operating frequency by at least about 2 GHz (claim 5).
Regarding claim 4¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 1.
US 12,147,066 also claims that S11L is less than -12 dB (claim 1, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 1, US 12,147,066 additionally claims an optical stack (claim 11, line 1) comprising: a substrate (claim 11, line 2); a radio-wave anti-reflection sheet configured to reduce reflection from the optical stack of radio waves emitted from a transmitter at a predetermined operating frequency (claim 11, lines 3-6); and a multilayer optical film disposed between the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the substrate (claim 11, lines 7-8), wherein for radiation substantially normally incident on the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet such that at least a portion of the radiation is transmitted through each of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet, the multilayer optical film, and the substrate (claim 11, lines 18-22); and for a first frequency range centered on the predetermined operating frequency and disposed between about 1 GHz and about 120 GHz (claim 11, lines 23-25): a return loss of the optical stack is asymmetric about the predetermined operating frequency in the first frequency range (claim 11, lines 26-28); and the optical stack has a largest return loss S11L in the first frequency range of less than -10 dB and a difference between the largest return loss S11L and a smallest return loss S11S in the first frequency range is less than about 2 dB (claim 11, lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 5¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 1 (claim 11 of US 12,147,066).
US 12,147,066 also claims that for the first frequency range extending from f1 to f2 (claim 11, line 23), and for each of a second frequency range of about 0.1 f1 to f1 and a third frequency range of f2 to about 3 f2, the return loss of the optical stack comprises a least one peak and at least one valley, the at least one peak comprising a first local maximum greater than S11L + 2 dB at a frequency fp1, the at least one valley comprising a first local minimum less than S11S – 2 dB at a frequency fv1, f2 – f1 ≥ |fp1 – fv1| (claim 11, lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 6¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 5.
US 12,147,066 also claims that for each of the second and third frequency ranges, f2 – f1 ≥ 1.5 |fp1 – fv1| (claim 12).
Regarding claim 8¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 1 (claims 1 or 11 of US 12,147,066).
US 12,147,066 also claims that the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet comprises first and second layers having respective first and second densities, the first density being lower than the second density, the second layer being disposed between the first layer and the multilayer optical film (claims 4 and/or 14).
Regarding claim 9¸ US 12,147,066 claims a radio-wave anti-reflection sheet comprising first and second layers having respective first and second densities (claim 4, lines 1-3), the first density being lower than the second density (claim 4, lines 3-4), the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet configured to reduce reflection of radio waves emitted from a transmitter at a predetermined operating frequency from an optical stack including the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet disposed on a substrate with a multilayer optical film disposed between the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the substrate (claim 1, lines 1-8) and with the second layer of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet disposed between the first layer of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the multilayer optical film (claim 4, lines 4-6), wherein for radiation substantially normally incident on the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet side of the optical stack such that at least a portion of the radiation is transmitted through each of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet, the multilayer optical film, and the substrate; and for a first frequency range at least 20 GHz wide, centered on the predetermined operating frequency, and disposed between about 1 GHz and about 120 GHz: a return loss of the optical stack is asymmetric about the predetermined operating frequency in the first frequency range; and the optical stack has a largest return loss S11L in the first frequency range of less than -10 dB and a difference between the largest return loss S11L and a smallest return loss S11S in the first frequency range is less than about 2 dB (claim 1, lines 18-33).
US 12,147,066 does not specifically claim that the substrate is a polymeric substrate and that the multilayer optical film is a polymeric multilayer optical film.
However, Official Notice is taken that polymeric substrates and polymeric multilayer optical films are old and well-known in the art for use in optical components. 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 radio-wave anti-reflection sheet so that it is configured to reduce reflection of radio waves emitted from a transmitter at a predetermined operating frequency from an optical stack including the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet disposed on a polymeric substrate with a polymeric multilayer optical film disposed between the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the substrate for the purpose of using known materials for substrates and multilayer optical films in order to obtain predictable results such as manufacturability and durability since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 10¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 9.
US 12,147,066 also claims that the first frequency range is at least 25 GHz wide (claim 2).
Regarding claim 11¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 9.
US 12,147,066 also claims that the smallest return loss S11S occurs at a frequency different from the predetermined operating frequency by at least about 2 GHz (claim 5).
Regarding claim 12¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 9.
US 12,147,066 also claims that S11L is less than -12 dB (claim 1, lines 29-30).
Regarding claim 13¸ US 12,147,066 claims a radio-wave anti-reflection sheet comprising first and second layers having respective first and second densities, the first density being lower than the second density (claim 14, lines 1-4), the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet configured to reduce reflection of radio waves emitted from a transmitter at a predetermined operating frequency from an optical stack including the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet disposed on a substrate with a multilayer optical film disposed between the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the substrate (claim 11, lines 1-8) and with the second layer of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet disposed between the first layer of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the multilayer optical film (claim 14, lines 4-6), wherein for radiation substantially normally incident on the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet side of the optical stack such that at least a portion of the radiation is transmitted through each of the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet, the multilayer optical film, and the substrate: for a first frequency range from f1 to f2, 1 GHz ≤ f1 < f2 ≤ 120 GHz, the predetermined operating frequency being an average of f1 and f2: a return loss of the optical stack is asymmetric about the predetermined operating frequency in the first frequency range; and the optical stack has a largest return loss S11L in the first frequency range of less than -10 dB and a difference between the largest return loss S11L and a smallest return loss S11S in the first frequency range is less than about 2 dB; and for each of a second frequency range of about 0.1 f1 to f1 and a third frequency range of f2 to about 3 f2, the return loss of the optical stack comprises a least one peak and at least one valley, the at least one peak comprising a first local maximum greater than S11L + 2 dB at a frequency fp1, the at least one valley comprising a first local minimum less than S11S – 2 dB at a frequency fv1, f2 – f1 ≥ |fp1 – fv1| (claim 11, lines 18-41).
US 12,147,066 does not specifically claim that the substrate is a polymeric substrate and that the multilayer optical film is a polymeric multilayer optical film.
However, Official Notice is taken that polymeric substrates and polymeric multilayer optical films are old and well-known in the art for use in optical components. 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 radio-wave anti-reflection sheet so that it is configured to reduce reflection of radio waves emitted from a transmitter at a predetermined operating frequency from an optical stack including the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet disposed on a polymeric substrate with a polymeric multilayer optical film disposed between the radio-wave anti-reflection sheet and the substrate for the purpose of using known materials for substrates and multilayer optical films in order to obtain predictable results such as manufacturability and durability since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 14¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 13.
US 12,147,066 also claims that for each of the second and third frequency ranges, f2 – f1 ≥ 1.5 |fp1 – fv1| (claim 12).
Regarding claim 15¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 13.
US 12,147,066 also claims that the smallest return loss S11S occurs at a frequency different from the predetermined operating frequency by at least about 2 GHz (claim 15).
Regarding claim 16¸ US 12,147,066 claims all of the limitations of claim 13.
US 12,147,066 also claims that S11L is less than -12 dB (claim 11, lines 29-30).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is objected to for at least the reason that the prior art fails to teach or suggest that f2 – f1 is at least 25 GHz, as generally set forth in claim 7, the invention including the totality of the particular limitations recited in claims 1 and 5, from which claim 7 depends.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM W BOOHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0573. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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.
/A.W.B./ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/Derek S. Chapel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights