DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 9/12/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/24/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamauchi teaches a half mirror (abstract; fig. 2) comprising:
a glass plate having a first surface and a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface (fig. 2, 20; ¶[0024], line 1-5, The plate-like member 20 is specifically a transparent acrylic plate, but may also be a glass plate);
a translucent reflective film arranged on the first surface of the glass plate (fig. 20; ¶[0024], line 1-5, the plate-like member 20 may include a half mirror layer; ¶[0048], line 1-6, a plate-like member 20 that is translucent; an anti-fogging coating layer 40 that suppresses fogging of the plate-like member 20); and
an antifog means arranged on at least one of the translucent reflective film and the second surface of the glass plate (fig. 2, 40, 20; ¶[0028], line 1-5, the anti-fogging coating layer 40 may be provided not only on the lower surface of the plate-shaped member 20 but also on the upper surface of the plate-shaped member 20, or may cover the entire surface of the plate-shaped member 20).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamauchi teaches the half mirror according to claim 1,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 40), and
the antifog film is provided on the second surface of the glass plate (¶[0028], line 1-5, the anti-fogging coating layer 40 may be provided not only on the lower surface of the plate-shaped member 20 but also on the upper surface of the plate-shaped member 20, or may cover the entire surface of the plate-shaped member 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamauchi teaches half mirror according to claim 1,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 20, 40), and the antifog film is provided on the translucent reflective film (¶[0024], line 1-5, the plate-like member 20 may include a half mirror layer; ¶[0028], line 1-5, the anti-fogging coating layer 40 may be provided not only on the lower surface of the plate-shaped member 20 but also on the upper surface of the plate-shaped member 20, or may cover the entire surface of the plate-shaped member 20).
Regarding Claim 21, Yamauchi teaches the half mirror according to claim1,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 40), and
the antifog film has a water repellent surface (¶[0027], line 1-4, anti-fogging coating layer 40; such as a water-repellent coating layer).
Regarding Claim 23, Yamauchi teaches the half mirror according to claim1, wherein the antifog means is arranged on the translucent reflective film and the second surface of the glass plate (figs. 2, 20, 40; ¶[0024], line 1-5, the plate-like member 20 may include a half mirror layer; ¶[0028], line 1-5, the anti-fogging coating layer 40 may be provided not only on the lower surface of the plate-shaped member 20 but also on the upper surface of the plate-shaped member 20, or may cover the entire surface of the plate-shaped member 20).
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 of this title, 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 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778) in a view of Hohn et al (US 20190386607).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamauchi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the half mirror according to claim 2, wherein the translucent reflective film has a surface roughness Ra of 15 nm or less.
However, Hohn in the same field of endeavor teaches a glazing unit (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the translucent reflective film (fig. 1, 2) has a surface roughness Ra of 15 nm or less (¶[0026], line 9-14, A structured surface in the sense of the present invention refers to a structure that has elevations and depressions. In some embodiments of the invention, the RMS roughness can be between about 30 nm and about 100 µm, --- the claimed ranges and the prior art ranges are very close; it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi by the glazing unit of Hohn for the purpose of the angle dependence of the color impression can be reduced or eliminated (¶[0023], line 1-10).
Regarding Claim 8 Yamauchi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the glass body according to claim 5, wherein a difference in an optical thickness of the antifog film is 150 nm or more and the antifog film has a thickness of 10 µm or more.
However, Hohn in the same field of endeavor teaches a glazing unit (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein a difference in an optical thickness of the antifog film is 150 nm or more and the antifog film has a thickness of 10 µm or more (¶[0026], line 9-14, A structured surface in the sense of the present invention refers to a structure that has elevations and depressions. In some embodiments of the invention, the RMS roughness can be between about 30 nm and about 100 µm, as disclosed in Hohn; --film thickness should be same or larger than the RMS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi by the glazing unit of Hohn for the purpose of the angle dependence of the color impression can be reduced or eliminated (¶[0023], line 1-10).
Claims 9-11, 13-15, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778, English translation attached) in a view of Kobayashi et al (US 20040095660).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamauchi discloses as set forth above and further teaches the half mirror according to claim 5, wherein the antifog means includes: the antifog film (fig. 2, 40).
But Yamauchi does not specifically disclose that wherein a film substrate that supports the antifog film and has a thickness of 10 µm or more; an adhesive layer that is arranged on a surface of the film substrate on a side opposite to the antifog film and is used to fix the film substrate to the translucent reflective film.
However, Kobayashi in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-fog element (abstract; figs., 1-10) comprising: a glass plate (fig. 4, 10’), a reflective film (figs. 4-5, 15; figs. 6-10, 36), and an antifog means (figs. 4-5, 12, 18);
wherein a film substrate that supports the antifog film and has a thickness of 10 µm or more (¶[0037], line 1-8, An automobile vehicle window 64 is composed of a transparent glass substrate 10a which totally makes up the widow glass main body, -- vehicle window has a thickness of 10 µm or more); and
an adhesive layer that is arranged on a surface of the film substrate on a side opposite to the antifog film and is used to fix the film substrate to the translucent reflective film (¶[0032], line 1-10, Over substantially the entire area of the rear surface of the reflecting film 36, a panel-like heater 42 is bonded by mean of an adhesive or a bonding agent; ¶[0035], line 7-10, a panel-like heater 42 adhered or bonded onto the rear surface of the glass substrate 10').
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi by the anti-fog element of Kobayashi for the purpose of an anti-fog element having enhanced film strength against defects and good film adhesion properties (¶[0001], line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 10, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1, wherein a haze ratio is 2% or less (---this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that optical diffusing functions provided by Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1, wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film containing a water absorbent resin (¶[0023], line 1-10, tetraalkoxysilane; silanol or polysiloxane is used to form a film, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1, wherein visible light transmittance is 20% or more and 70% or less (---this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that optical transmittance functions provided by Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977))..
Regarding Claim 14, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1, wherein, when a reflected color tone on the translucent reflective film side is represented using the L*a*b* color system, a value of a* is -15 to 15, and when a reflected color tone on the translucent reflective film side is represented using the L*a*b* color system, a value of b* is -15 to 15 (---this portion of claim is of functional claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that optical color functions provided by Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)).
Regarding Claim 15, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1, wherein thermal conductivity of the translucent reflective film is larger than that of the glass plate (figs. 6-10, 10/10’ 36; ¶[0027], line 1-12, substrate 10', a soda lime glass; ¶[0031], line 1-10, and a reflecting film 36 such as Cr or Al film; --aluminum has a larger thermal conductivity than that of glass, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 22, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 21, wherein a water contact angle on the surface of the antifog film is 70° or more (figs. 4-5, 12; ¶[0031], line 9-10, a porous SiO2 film 12,-- the porous SiO2 may have water contact angles between about 63° to 85°, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 24, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1, further comprising a light-shielding film formed on at least one of the antifog means and the translucent reflective film (fig. 7, 36, 42; ---42 on reflecting film 36, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778) in a view of Kobayashi et al (US 20040095660), further in a view of Hohn et al (US 20190386607).
Regarding Claim 12, Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the half mirror according to claim 11, wherein the antifog film has a thickness of 5 µm or more.
However, Hohn in the same field of endeavor teaches a glazing unit (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the antifog film has a thickness of 5 µm or more (¶[0026], line 9-14, A structured surface in the sense of the present invention refers to a structure that has elevations and depressions. In some embodiments of the invention, the RMS roughness can be between about 30 nm and about 100 µm, --film thickness should be same or larger than the RMS).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi - Kobayashi combination by the glazing unit of Hohn for the purpose of the angle dependence of the color impression can be reduced or eliminated (¶[0023], line 1-10).
Claims 4, 6-7 and 16-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778) in a view of Hohn et al (US 20190386607), further in a view of Kobayashi et al (US 20040095660).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamauchi - Hohn combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the half mirror according to claim 3, wherein the glass plate is made of float glass, and a tin oxide concentration at the first surface is lower than a tin oxide concentration at the second surface.
However, Kobayashi in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-fog element (abstract; figs., 1-10), wherein the glass plate is made of float glass, and a tin oxide concentration at the first surface is lower than a tin oxide concentration at the second surface (fig. 4, 10’; ¶[0027], line 1-12, substrate 10', a soda lime glass; as disclosed in Kobayashi; --- the glass substrate is soda-lime glass made of float glass and the tin oxide concentration at the first surface is implicitly lower than a tin oxide concentration at the second surface. It is well known that, in a glass plate made of float glass, the concentrations of tin oxide at the two principal surfaces thereof are different due to the float glass manufacturing method, see instant application publication ¶[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi - Hohn combination by the anti-fog element of Kobayashi for the purpose of an anti-fog element having enhanced film strength against defects and good film adhesion properties (¶[0001], line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamauchi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the glass body according to claim 5, wherein the translucent reflective film is formed by layering a plurality of layers, and a difference in a refractive index between the antifog film and the outermost layer of the translucent reflective film that is adjacent to the antifog film is 0.1 or less.
However, Hohn in the same field of endeavor teaches a glazing unit (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the translucent reflective film is formed by layering a plurality of layers (fig. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi by the glazing unit of Hohn for the purpose of the angle dependence of the color impression can be reduced or eliminated (¶[0023], line 1-10).
But Yamauchi - Hohn combination does not specifically disclose that wherein a difference in a refractive index between the antifog film and the outermost layer of the translucent reflective film that is adjacent to the antifog film is 0.1 or less.
However, Kobayashi in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-fog element (abstract; figs., 1-10), wherein a difference in a refractive index between the antifog film and the outermost layer of the translucent reflective film that is adjacent to the antifog film is 0.1 or less (figs. 4-5, 12, 15; ¶[0027], line 1-5, an intermediate film 15; An example of the intermediate film includes a silicone thin film…; ¶[0031], line 9-10, the SiO2 film 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi - Hohn combination by the anti-fog element of Kobayashi for the purpose of an anti-fog element having enhanced film strength against defects and good film adhesion properties (¶[0001], line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamauchi - Hohn - Kobayashi combination teaches the glass body according to claim 6, wherein the antifog film has a refractive index of 1.6 or less (figs. 4-5, 12, 18; ¶[0031], line 9-10, the SiO2 film 12, as disclosed in Kobayashi; SiO2 has a refractive index n about 1.5).
Regarding Claim 16, Yamauchi discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that wherein the half mirror according to claim1, wherein the translucent reflective film is formed by layering a plurality of layers, and at least one of the plurality of layers is a metal reflective layer made of a metal or semimetal.
However, Hohn in the same field of endeavor teaches a glazing unit (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the half mirror according to claim1, wherein the translucent reflective film is formed by layering a plurality of layers (fig. 1, 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi by the glazing unit of Hohn for the purpose of the angle dependence of the color impression can be reduced or eliminated (¶[0023], line 1-10).
But Yamauchi - Hohn combination does not specifically disclose that wherein at least one of the plurality of layers is a metal reflective layer made of a metal or semimetal.
However, Kobayashi in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-fog element (abstract; figs., 1-10), wherein at least one of the plurality of layers is a metal reflective layer made of a metal or semimetal (figs. 6-10, 36; ¶[0031], line 1-10, and a reflecting film 36 such as Cr or Al film).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the glass body of Yamauchi - Hohn combination by the anti-fog element of Kobayashi for the purpose of an anti-fog element having enhanced film strength against defects and good film adhesion properties (¶[0001], line 1-8).
Regarding Claim 17, Yamauchi -- Hohn - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 16, wherein the metal reflective layer contains at least one of Si, Ag, Al, Cr, Ti, and Mo as a main component (figs. 6-10, 36; ¶[0031], line 1-10, and a reflecting film 36 such as Cr or Al film, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 18, Yamauchi -- Hohn - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 16, wherein the outermost layer of the translucent reflective film has a refractive index of 1.5 or less for a visible light region (¶[0037], Table, the SiO2 layer, as disclosed in Hohn; --SiO2 has a refractive index n about 1.5).
Regarding Claim 19, Yamauchi -- Hohn - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 18, wherein the outermost layer contains SiO2 as a main component (¶[0037], Table, the SiO2 layer, as disclosed in Hohn; --SiO2 has a refractive index n about 1.5).
Regarding Claim 20 Yamauchi -- Hohn - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 19,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 40, as disclosed in Yamauchi; figs. 4-5, 12, as disclosed in Kobayashi), and
the antifog film is provided on the translucent reflective film (fig. 2, 20, 40, as disclosed in Yamauchi; figs. 4-5, 15, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current new rejections.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872