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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0124667, of record) in view of Nevitt et al. (US 2007/0097509 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses an optical film (Figure 1; 10, multilayer polymer film), comprising:
a reflective polarizer portion ([0027] discloses: 10, polymer film may be used as an optical polarizer; [0028] discloses: can be made as a reflective polarizer) comprising a plurality of alternating first and second polymer layers ([0027] discloses: 12, first optical layer and 14, second optical layer, that are polymeric and alternating), each of the first and second polymer layers having an in-plane birefringence of at least 0.02 (Figures 2 and 5 teach PEN exhibiting birefringence of approximately 0.18-0.25, which develop in-plane birefringence of approximately 0.10-0.15 when stretched at 110-120 degrees C, therefore at least 0.02, see Fig. 5; [0028] discloses: preferably refractive index difference in one in plane direction of greater than about 0.20); and
a reflector portion ([0032] discloses: 18, additional layers; [0019] discloses: multilayer films can be mirrors and/or polarizers; thus 18, can be reasonably considered the reflector portion) disposed on the reflective polarizer portion (Figure 1 depicts: 18, additional layers disposed on the reflective polarizer portion), and comprising a plurality of alternating third and fourth polymer layers ([0032] discloses: 18, additional layers are polymer layers),
wherein the reflective polarizer portion and the reflector portion are coextruded and co- stretched with one another ([0029] discloses: stretching 10, multilayer film over a range of uniaxial to biaxial orientations; [0075] discloses: coextrusion of layers at the time of film formation).
Liu fail to disclose an optical film wherein the reflector portion exhibiting less polarization-sensitive reflection compared to the reflective polarizer portion. Liu and Nevitt are related because both disclose optical films.
Nevitt teaches an optical film wherein the reflector portion exhibiting less polarization-sensitive reflection compared to the reflective polarizer portion ([0026] discloses: reflective polarizers substantially reflect light having one polarization while substantially transmitting the other polarization; MOF mirrors substantially reflect both polarizations of light; thus the reflector portion, MOF mirror, exhibiting less polarization-sensitive reflection compared to the reflective polarizer).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Nevitt and provide an optical film wherein the reflector portion exhibiting less polarization-sensitive reflection compared to the reflective polarizer portion. Doing so would allow for polarization selective reflection in one portion and substantially polarization independent reflection in the other, thereby improving control over the films reflected and transmitted light.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1, wherein the in-plane birefringence is at least 0.04 for each of the first and second polymer layers ([0028] discloses: preferably refractive index difference in one in plane direction of greater than about 0.20).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0124667, of record) in view of Nevitt et al. (US 2007/0097509 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tai (US 207/0329060 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1, wherein:
for a first in-plane direction, a difference in refractive index between the first polymer layers and the second polymer layers is at least 0.04 ([0028] discloses: 12, 14, layers with refractive index difference in one in plane direction of about 0.20).
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein for a second in-plane direction orthogonal to the first in-plane direction, a difference in refractive index between the first polymer layers and the second polymer layers is less than 0.04; and for each of the first and second in-plane directions, a difference in refractive index between the third polymer layers and the fourth polymer layers is at least 0.04. Liu and Tai are related because both disclose optical films.
Tai teaches an optical film wherein for a second in-plane direction orthogonal to the first in-plane direction, a difference in refractive index between the first polymer layers and the second polymer layers is less than 0.04 ([0027] teaches: in plane refractive indices of orthogonal in plane directions differ by no more than 0.4); and
for each of the first and second in-plane directions, a difference in refractive index between the third polymer layers and the fourth polymer layers is at least 0.04 ([0025] teaches: in plane directions of layers differ by at least 0.04).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Tai and provide an optical film wherein for a second in-plane direction orthogonal to the first in-plane direction, a difference in refractive index between the first polymer layers and the second polymer layers is less than 0.04; and for each of the first and second in-plane directions, a difference in refractive index between the third polymer layers and the fourth polymer layers is at least 0.04. Doing so would allow for a large refractive index mismatch in the orthogonal direction for the polarizer portion, while providing a large mismatch in both in plane directions for the reflector portion, thereby producing the desired polarization selectivity/reflection.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0124667, of record) in view of Nevitt et al. (US 2007/0097509 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Padiyath et al. (US 2007/0109673).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1.
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 50% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm. Liu and Padiyath are related because both disclose optical film layers.
Padiyath teaches an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 50% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm (Claim 3 teaches: substrate with alternating layers of first polymer type and a second polymer type; [0103] teaches: substrate can be tuned to reflect light S- and P-polarization from 800 nm-1200 nm at 80% reflectance; thereby necessarily permitting less than 20% transmission over that wavelength range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Padiyath and provide an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 50% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm. Doing so would allow for reduced transmission of infrared light through the optical film, thereby improving infrared rejection.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1.
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 40% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm. Liu and Padiyath are related because both disclose optical film layers.
Padiyath teaches an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 40% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm (Claim 3 teaches: substrate with alternating layers of first polymer type and a second polymer type; [0103] teaches: substrate can be tuned to reflect light S- and P-polarization from 800 nm-1200 nm at 80% reflectance; thereby necessarily permitting less than 20% transmission over that wavelength range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Padiyath and provide an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 40% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm. Doing so would allow for reduced transmission of infrared light through the optical film, thereby improving infrared rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1.
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 30% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm. Liu and Padiyath are related because both disclose optical film layers.
Padiyath teaches an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 30% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm (Claim 3 teaches: substrate with alternating layers of first polymer type and a second polymer type; [0103] teaches: substrate can be tuned to reflect light S- and P-polarization from 800 nm-1200 nm at 80% reflectance; thereby necessarily permitting less than 20% transmission over that wavelength range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Padiyath and provide an optical film wherein the reflector portion transmits less than 30% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm. Doing so would allow for reduced transmission of infrared light through the optical film, thereby improving infrared rejection.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0124667, of record) in view of Nevitt et al. (US 2007/0097509 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Nevitt et al. (US 2016/0238762 A1) hereinafter Nevitt762.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein each of the reflective polarizer and reflector portions comprise greater than 200 layers in total. Liu and Nevitt762 are related because both disclose optical films.
Nevitt762 teaches an optical film wherein each of the reflective polarizer and reflector portions comprise greater than 200 layers in total ([0040] teaches: 162, optical repeat units; [0019] teaches: optical repeat units each have two adjacent microlayers; thus 324 optical layers per packet).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Nevitt762 and provide an optical film wherein each of the reflective polarizer and reflector portions comprise greater than 200 layers in total. Doing so would allow for constructive interference from a greater number of polymer interfaces, thereby increasing reflectivity over the desired wavelength range.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1.
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein at least one of either the first polymer layers or the second polymer layers comprise a same material as at least one of either the third polymer layers or the fourth polymer layers. Liu and Nevitt762 are related because both disclose optical films.
Nevitt762 teaches an optical film wherein at least one of either the first polymer layers or the second polymer layers comprise a same material as at least one of either the third polymer layers or the fourth polymer layers ([0040] teaches: 162, optical repeat units; [0019] teaches: optical repeat units each have two adjacent microlayers; thus first and second layers PEN/PMMA in one packet and third and fourth PMMA/PEN layers in the second packet, that are made of the same material)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Nevitt762 and provide an optical film wherein at least one of either the first polymer layers or the second polymer layers comprise a same material as at least one of either the third polymer layers or the fourth polymer layers. Doing so would allow for multiple optical packets to be formed from compatible polymer materials using common melt streams, thereby simplifying coextrusion and manufacture of the multilayer film.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2010/0124667, of record) in view of Nevitt et al. (US 2007/0097509 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Stover et al. (US 2007/0047080 A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Liu discloses the optical film of claim 1.
Liu fails to disclose an optical film wherein the reflective polarizer portion and the reflector portion are coextruded with one another along a downweb direction and are co-stretched with one another primarily in a crossweb direction orthogonal to the downweb direction. Liu and Stover are related because both disclose optical film layers.
Stover teaches an optical film wherein the reflective polarizer portion and the reflector portion are coextruded with one another along a downweb direction ([0065] teaches: PEN and coPEN polymers fed from separate extruders to a coextrusion feedblock; [0063] teaches: down-web direction as machine direction; thus the polymers are extruded in the same downweb direction) and are co-stretched with one another primarily in a crossweb direction orthogonal to the downweb direction ([0060] teaches: stretching in the transverse direction; [0031] teaches: transverse direction is crossweb direction; [0034] teaches: orthogonal stretch direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Liu in view of Stover and provide disclose an optical film wherein the reflective polarizer portion and the reflector portion are coextruded with one another along a downweb direction and are co-stretched with one another primarily in a crossweb direction orthogonal to the downweb direction. Doing so would allow for substantially uniaxial orientation of the coextruded multilayer film, thereby producing the desired birefringence and polarization selective optical properties.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are 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:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “wherein the reflective polarizer portion transmits more than 90% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 1, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art fails to teach or suggest “reflective polarizer portion transmits more than 90% of normally incident unpolarized light averaged over 900-1200 nm” along with the structural limitations positively recited in claim 1, in a manner that would support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103, based on the prior art of record and the search requirements of MPEP § 904.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Johnson et al. (US 2018/0172888 A1) and Bilkadi et al. (5,677,050) both disclose relevant optical system but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights