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 .
2. Applicant's arguments filed 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-14 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata (JP 2016-165379) in view Zhou (CN 205149069).
Obata discloses a mirror comprising a mirror main body (2) formed in a polygonal shape in a plan view (see Fig. 1(a)) and having a first main face (the top surface of element (2) having coating (3)) that reflects an image (see Fig. 1(b)), a second main face (the bottom surface of element (2)) that is opposite to the first main face (see figures 1(a) and 1(b)), and a peripheral edge face (10, 13) that connects the first main face and the second main face to each other (see figures 1(a) and 2(a)), wherein the peripheral edge face includes a plurality of first end faces (see Fig. 1(a)) and a second end face (14, 20) that connects the adjacent first end faces (see figures 1(a), 2(a) and 2(b)), and the second end face constitutes a first chamfered portion (13) formed at an outer edge of the mirror main body in a plan view (see figures 1(a), 2(a), and 2(b)), wherein a second chamfered portion (13) is formed between the first main face and the peripheral edge face (see figures 1(a), 2(a) and 2(b)), wherein a second chamfered portion is formed between the first main face and the peripheral edge face (see Fig. 1(a)), an antifog layer (7), an undercoat layer (6, 8) disposed between the antifog layer and the first main face (see Fig. 1(b)), wherein the antifog layer is not disposed in a peripheral edge region having a predetermined width and extending from the peripheral edge of the first main face toward the center thereof (see figures 2(a) and 5(a)), wherein the entire first main face is covered by the antifog layer (see figures 2(a) and 5(a)), wherein the antifog layer has antifog performance as a result of being hydrophilic (see paragraph 0015), wherein the antifog layer further has antifog performance as a result of having a water absorbing property due to the fact that element (7) is hydrophilic (see paragraph 0015), and wherein the mirror of Obata would inherently take at least 30 seconds or more for dew to form on the antifog layer due to fact the layer is of an antifogging material and imparts of the same structure claim by applicant and thus, must inherently perform the same function. Note figures 1(a)-2(b) and 5(a) along with the associated description thereof, except for the antifog covering a portion of the first and second chamfered portions.
Zhou teaches it is well known to extend an antifog layer (2) of a mirror to cover a chamfered portion and a peripheral edge face of a mirror (see Fig. 1) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of protecting mirror from damage due to environmental conditions.
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 antifog layer of Obata to extend in such a manner so as cover the chamfered portion and the peripheral edge face of the mirror, as taught by Zhou, in order to protect the mirror from damage due to environmental conditions.
As to the limitations of claims 9 and 12, that the antifog layer having a thickness of 2 to 12 μm, and having a thickness at the peripheral edge face larger than the thickness of the antifog layer disposed on the first main face, respectively, 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 thickness of the antifog layer of Obata in view of Zhou to be in the range recited by applicant in order to obtain a desirable degree of protection of the underlining layers or mirror from damage due to environmental conditions to meet certain user specifications, since it has been held that discovering an optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. Note: In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233,235; In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) and In re Boesch, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
5. Claim(s) 17, 18 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata (JP 2016-165379) in view Zhou (CN 205149069).
Obata in view of Zhou discloses all of the subject matter claimed, note the above explanation, except for the antifog layer having a cross-linked structure formed by a hydrolyzable metallic compound to provide a shatterproof function.
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 antifog layer of Obata in view of Zhou to include a hydrolyzable metallic compound, as known in the art, 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 use as an antifog layer with shatterproof function. Note: Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As to the limitations of claim 21, such features are inherently met by the above modification and product of the antifog layer.
6. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata (JP 2016-165379) in view Zhou (CN 205149069).
Obata in view of Zhou discloses all of the subject matter claimed, note the above explanation, except for a protection film covering the antifog layer.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to use and employ protective films to cover an antifog layer in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of protecting the antifog film from damage due to environmental conditions (i.e., see Fig. 1 of JP 04-189305 to Arai along with the associated description thereof and Fig. 3 of US 2017/0334167 to Kohler along with the associated description thereof).
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 antifog layer of Obata in view of Zhou to include a protection film in order to protect the antifog film from damage due to environmental conditions.
7. Claim(s) 29, 31 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obata (JP 2016-165379) in view Zhou (CN 205149069) as applied to claims above 1, 2, 5, 6, 9-14 and 39, and further in view of Aumercier (GB 2279763).
Obata in view of Zhou discloses all of the subject matter claimed, note the above explanation, except for explicitly stating that the mirror body/coating includes a metal layer or a metalloid layer laminated on one face of the glass plate, a resin protective layer laminated on the metal layer or the metalloid layer, and an inorganic oxide layer laminated between the metal layer or the metalloid layer and the protective layer.
Aumercier teaches it is well known to manufacture a mirror body/coating which typically includes a metal layer or a metalloid layer (16) laminated on one face of a glass plate (12), a resin protective layer (19) laminated on the metal layer or the metalloid layer, and an inorganic oxide layer (17) laminated between the metal layer or the metalloid layer and the protective layer (see figures 1 and 3 along with the associated description thereof) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of creating a reflective mirror body.
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 body/coating of Obata in view of Zhou to include a typical mirror coating having a metal layer or a metalloid layer laminated on one face of the glass plate, a resin protective layer laminated on the metal layer or the metalloid layer, and an inorganic oxide layer laminated between the metal layer or the metalloid layer and the protective layer, as taught by Aumercier, in order to obtain a typical reflective mirror body.
As to the limitations of claim 37 that the protective layer includes a shatterproof film, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to use and employ a shatterproof film to cover a protective layer in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of preventing fragments from scattering when the mirror main body cracks (i.e., see figures 2-4 of U.S. Patent 3,427,096 to Dykema et al along with the associated description thereof).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mirror body/coating of Obata in view of Zhou and further in view of Aumercier to include a shatterproof film to cover the protective layer, as commonly used and employed in the mirror art, in order to prevent fragments from scattering when the mirror main body cracks so as to protect individual from possible injuries.
As to the limitations of claim 38 that the protective layer includes various types of information, the examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known to use and employ various types of indicia on a mirror/protective coating for the purpose of adverting a manufacturer’s product (i.e., see Fig. 2 of U.S. Patent 6,561,657 to Schofield along with the associated description thereof; and Fig. 2 with paragraph 0025 of U.S Patent Application Publication US 2011/0109967 to Sierra along with the associated description thereof).
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/protection layer of mirror body/coating of Obata in view of Zhou and further in view of Aumercier to include an indicia, as commonly used and employed in the mirror art, in order to similarly advertise a manufacturer’s product.
8. Japanese Patent (JP 04189305) to Arai and U.S. Patent Application Publication (US 2017/0334167 to Kohler) each teach that it is well known to apply a protective film to an antifog layer of a mirror in order to protect the antifog layer from damage (i.e., see Fig. 1 of JP 04-189305 to Arai along with the associated description thereof; and Fig. 3 of US 2017/0334167 to Kohler along with the associated description thereof).
U.S. Patent 3,427,096 to Dykema et al teaches that it is well known to apply a shatterproof film to a protection layer in order to prevent fragments from scattering when the mirror main body cracks so as to protect individual from possible injuries.
U.S. Patent 6,561,657 to Schofield and U.S Patent Application Publication US 2011/0109967 to Sierra each teach it is well known to use and employ various types of indicia on a mirror/protective coating for the purpose of adverting a manufacturer’s product (i.e., see Fig. 2 of U.S. Patent 6,561,657 to Schofield along with the associated description thereof; and Fig. 2 with paragraph 0025 of U.S Patent Application Publication US 2011/0109967 to Sierra along with the associated description thereof).
9. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICKY D SHAFER whose telephone number is (571)272-2320. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 11:00-7:30.
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 on (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.
RDS
September 18, 2025
/RICKY D SHAFER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872