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 3/6/2026.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/6/2026 and 12/18/2025 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 § 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 1, 5-7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2010257714, English translation attached) in a view of Kobayashi et al (US 20040095660).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a half mirror (abstract; fig. 2) comprising:
a polycarbonate plate substrate having a first surface and a second surface on a side opposite to the first surface (fig. 2, 2- polycarbonate substrate);
a translucent reflective film arranged on the first surface of the glass plate (fig. 2, 3, 4, 5; abstract, line 1-10, having a half mirror and a defogging coat; A first titanium oxide layer 3, a half mirror layer 4, a second titanium oxide layer 5; The first and second titanium oxide layers 3 and 5 are disposed on both sides of the half mirror layer 4; the defogging coat layer 6 can be formed on the half mirror layer 4); and
an antifog means arranged on at least one of the translucent reflective film and the second surface of the glass plate (fig. 2, 4, 6- defogging coat layer);
wherein visible light transmittance is 20% or more and 70% or less (fig. 5, transmittance curve around 35%; ¶[0076], line 1-10, the transmittance range of 5% to 40%, which is the range in which the half mirror appears to the naked eye, can be achieved when the thickness of the aluminum layer 4 is 5 nm to 25 nm),
the translucent reflective film is formed by layering a plurality of layers (fig. 2, 3, 4, 5), and
at least one of the plurality of layers is a metal reflective layer made of a metal or semimetal (fig. 2, 4- aluminum layer).
But Suzuki does not specifically disclose that where a glass plate substrate.
However, , Kobayashi in the same field of endeavor teaches an anti-fog element (abstract; figs., 1-10) comprising: a glass plate substrate (fig. 4, 10’), a reflective film (figs. 4-5, 15; figs. 6-10, 36), and an antifog means (figs. 4-5, 12, 18).
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 half mirror of Suzuki 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 5, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches half mirror according to claim 1, wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film, and the antifog film is provided on the translucent reflective film (fig. 2, 6, 5/4/3, as disclosed in Suzuki)
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches that the glass body according to claim 5, wherein the translucent reflective film is formed by layering a plurality of layers (fig. 2, 3, 4, 5, as disclosed in Suzuki), 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 (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, as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches that 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 9, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches that half mirror according to claim 5, wherein the antifog means includes: the antifog film (fig. 2, 6, as disclosed in Suzuki),
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, as disclosed in Kobayashi); 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', as disclosed in Kobayashi).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches that 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 Suzuki - Kobayashi combination is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that optical diffusing functions provided by Suzuki - 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, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches that 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 12, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches that the half mirror according to claim 11, wherein the antifog film has a thickness of 5 µm or more (¶[0032], line 1-9, The thickness of the anti-fogging coating layer 6 may be any thickness that allows it to exhibit anti-fogging properties, and is set to, for example, about 1 µm or more and 8 µm or less, as disclosed in Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki - 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 Suzuki - Kobayashi combination is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expected that optical color functions provided by Suzuki - 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, Suzuki - 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 17, Suzuki - 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, Suzuki - 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 (fig. 2, 3/5; ¶[0066], line 1-4, first and second silicon oxide layers each having a thickness of 5 nm were disposed instead of the first and second titanium oxide layers 3 and 5, as disclosed in Suzuki; --the silicon oxide (SiO2) layer, SiO2 has a refractive index n about 1.5).
Regarding Claim 19, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 18, wherein the outermost layer contains SiO2 as a main component (fig. 2, 3/5; ¶[0066], line 1-4, first and second silicon oxide layers each having a thickness of 5 nm were disposed instead of the first and second titanium oxide layers 3 and 5, as disclosed in Suzuki; --the silicon oxide (SiO2) layer, SiO2 has a refractive index n about 1.5).
Regarding Claim 20, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 19,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 6, as disclosed in Suzuki), and
the antifog film is provided on the translucent reflective film (fig. 2, 6, 5/4/3, as disclosed in Suzuki).
Regarding Claim 21, Suzuki - Kobayashi combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 6, as disclosed in Suzuki), and
the antifog film has a water repellent surface (¶[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 22, Suzuki - 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, Suzuki - 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).
Claims 1-3, 5, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778, English translation attached) in a view of Yamamoto et al (US 6312131).
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).
But Yamauchi does not specifically disclose that wherein visible light transmittance is 20% or more and 70% or less, 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, Yamamoto et al teaches a half mirror and antifogging mirror (abstract; figs. 1-3; col. 5, line 15-23; col. 1, line 63 –col. 2, line 3), wherein visible light transmittance is 20% or more and 70% or less, 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 (fig. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; col. 5, line 15-23, The hydrophilic mirror of the present invention has a visible light transmission of 30% or less, which permits use of the mirror as a half mirror; col. 6, line 1-10, The mirror shown in FIG. 1 has, on a glass substrate 1, a silicon layer 2, a silicon oxide layer 3, a titanium oxide layer 4, and a silicon oxide layer 5).
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 half mirror of Yamamoto for a purpose to provide a hydrophilic and durable mirror having high visible light reflection which is easily cleaned and retains high hydrophilicity (col. 2, line 20-25).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination teaches the half mirror according to claim 1,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 40, as disclosed in Yamauchi), 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, as disclosed in Yamauchi).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination teaches that the half mirror according to claim 2, wherein the translucent reflective film has a surface roughness Ra of 15 nm or less ( col. 4, line 11-15, The outermost roughness of the mirror preferably has a center-line average roughness (Ra) of 0.5 to 25 nm, as disclosed in Yamamoto).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination 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, as disclosed in Yamauchi).
Regarding Claim 21, Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination teaches the half mirror according to claim1,
wherein the antifog means includes an antifog film (fig. 2, 40, as disclosed in Yamauchi), 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, as disclosed in Yamauchi).
Regarding Claim 23, Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination 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, as disclosed in Yamauchi).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778) in a view of Yamamoto et al (US 6312131), further in a view of Kobayashi et al (US 20040095660).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamauchi – Yamamoto 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 – Yamamoto 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).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi et al (JP 2017107778) in a view of Yamamoto et al (US 6312131), further in a view of Oya et al (US 20180273791).
Regarding Claim 8 Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination discloses as set forth above, and further teaches wherein a difference in an optical thickness of the antifog film is 150 nm or more (col. 1, line 45-62, hydrophilic to make it antifogging; the average surface roughness of the hydrophilic film ranging from 0.5 to 500 nm, as disclosed in Yamamoto).
But Yamauchi – Yamamoto combination does not specifically disclose that wherein the antifog film has a thickness of 10 µm or more.
However, Oya teaches an anti-fog film (abstract), wherein the antifog film has a thickness of 10 µm or more (¶[0072], line 1-5, The thickness of the anti-fog film can be adjusted as appropriate depending on the required anti-fog properties and other factors. The thickness of the anti-fog film is preferably 1 to 20 µm, more preferably 2 to 15 µm, and particularly preferably 3 to 10 µm).
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 – Yamamoto combination by the anti-fog film of Oya for the purpose to provide an anti-fogging coated transparent article excellent both in film strength properties typified by abrasion resistance and wear resistance and in anti-fog properties (¶[0012], line 1-17).
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
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
Prosecution Insights