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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 1 is amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7, 10, 13-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 A1) in view of Lu (CN 106646874 B) and Matsunami (JP 2010079197 A).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses in at least figures 1 and 3A, a projection assembly for a head-up display (display system 10 fig. 1), comprising:
a composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1), comprising an outer pane (first ply 22 fig. 1) and an inner pane (second ply 28 fig. 1) that are joined to one another (the interlayer 34 may be of a suitable material so as to hold the plies 22, 28 together paragraph [0112]) via a thermoplastic intermediate layer (inter layer 34 can be made from a polymer such as polyvinyl butyral paragraph [0112]), the composite pane having a HUD region (at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042] as show in fig. 2 of the current application);
a HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) suitable for reflecting p-polarized radiation (p-polarized radiation reflects off of the enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 paragraph [0122]), on a surface (the reflective coating 36 is on the third surface 30 of ply 28 fig. 1) of the outer pane or of the inner pane (ply 28 fig. 1) facing (the third surface 30 faces the inter layer 34 fig. 1) the thermoplastic intermediate layer (inter layer 34 can be made from a polymer such as polyvinyl butyral paragraph [0112]) or within the thermoplastic intermediate layer. a HUD projector (radiation source 14 fig. 1) that is directed (the radiation source 14 emits radiation 16 directed to at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042]) at the HUD region (at least one point on laminate 12 paragraph [0042]) and that is adapted to emit p-polarized radiation (the radiation 16 may be p-polarized paragraph [0042]);
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, a high-refractive-index coating having a refractive index of at least 1.7 on a main interior-side surface of the inner pane facing away from the thermoplastic intermediate layer such that the inner pane is arranged between the HUD reflection layer and the high-refractive-index coating,
wherein the high-refractive-index coating is a solgel coating.
However Lu discloses in at least figure 1, a high-refractive-index coating (transparent nanofilm 14 has a stacked structure of a high refractive index layer paragraph [0045] of translation) having a refractive index of at least 1.7 (the high index is not less than 1.8 paragraph [0045] of translation) on a main interior-side surface (main surface as shown below in fig. 1) of the inner pane (inner glass plate 11 fig. 1) facing away from the thermoplastic (thermoplastic taught above by Wagner) intermediate layer (intermediate film 13 fig. 1) such that the inner pane (inner glass plate 11 fig. 1) is arranged between (the inner glass plate is between the low emissivity coating and the transparent nanofilm 14 fig. 1) the HUD reflection layer (low emissivity coating 15 fig. 1) and the high-refractive-index coating (transparent nanofilm 14 fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation).
PNG
media_image1.png
563
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally Matsunami discloses in at least figure 8, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (the anti-reflection film can have a high index film paragraph [0055] of translation) is a solgel coating (anti-reflection films may be formed on the surface of the substrate glass by a sol-gel method paragraph [0055] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a sol gel coating as taught by Matsunami in the display system of Wagner. The sol gel coating can be used to reduce the reflection of the film applied to the glass windshield.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the radiation (radiation 16 fig. 1) of the HUD projector (radiation source 14 fig. 1) strikes the composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1) with an angle of incidence of (the angle the radiation strikes the laminate 12 is 60° fig. 7).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating is at least 1.8.
However Lu further discloses, the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating (transparent nanofilm 14 has a stacked structure of a high refractive index layer paragraph [0045] of translation) is at least 1.8 (the high index is not less than 1.8 paragraph [0045] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating contains silicon nitride, a mixed silicon-metal nitride, aluminum nitride, tin oxide, manganese oxide, tungsten oxide, niobium oxide, bismuth oxide, titanium oxide, mixed tin-zinc oxide, zirconium oxide (), scandium oxide, yttrium oxide, tantalum oxide, lanthanum oxide, or cerium oxide.
However Lu further discloses, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (transparent nanofilm 14 has a stacked structure of a high refractive index layer paragraph [0045] of translation) contains silicon nitride (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Si nitride paragraph [0046] of translation), a mixed silicon-metal nitride (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of a mixture of Si nitride paragraph [0046] of translation), aluminum nitride (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Al nitride paragraph [0046] of translation), tin oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Sn oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), manganese oxide (not required by claim), tungsten oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of W oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), niobium oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Nb oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), bismuth oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Bi oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), titanium oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Ti oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), mixed tin-zinc oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of a mixture of Sn and Zn oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), zirconium oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Zr oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), scandium oxide (not required by claim), yttrium oxide(the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Y oxide paragraph [0046] of translation), tantalum oxide (not required by claim), lanthanum oxide (not required by claim), or cerium oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Ce oxide paragraph [0046] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein a thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most 100 nm.
However Lu further discloses, wherein a thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most 100 nm (The geometric thickness of the high refractive index layer is preferably set to 50-100 nm paragraph [0049] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating contains titanium oxide or zirconium oxide.
However Lu further discloses, wherein the high-refractive-index coating contains titanium oxide or zirconium oxide (the high-refractive-index layer of the transparent nanofilm 14 is selected from at least one of Ti or Zr oxide paragraph [0046] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein a reflection quotient R20/RIV is at least 50:1, wherein R2o is the reflectance of the HUD reflection layer and RIV is the reflectance of the surface provided with the high-refractive-index coating, in each case with respect to p-polarized radiation.
However Lu discloses, wherein a reflection quotient R20/RIV is (as a result of the values below R20/RIV is greater than 3.75, wherein R20 is the reflectance of the HUD reflection layer (the low-emissivity coating has a reflectivity of less than 4% paragraph [0023] of translation) and RIV is the reflectance of the surface provided with the high-refractive-index coating (the transparent nanofilm has a reflectivity of more than 15% paragraph [0025] of translation), in each case with respect to p-polarized radiation (the reflectivity is of p polarized light paragraphs [0023] and [0025] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating and HUD reflection layer as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation) and when the reflectivity of the low-emissivity coating to P-polarized light is high, the secondary image is more obvious, thus producing the ghosting phenomenon of the head-up display image paragraph [0047] of translation).
Additionally In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (R20/RIV is at least 50:1 required by the claim lies inside the ranges disclosed by Lu (R20/RIV is greater than 3.75). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) is an HUD reflection coating (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) that is implemented as a thin-film stack that includes at least one electrically conductive layer (the enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 may be a double metal functional layer enhanced p-polarized reflective coating 36 paragraph [0052] the metal functional layer can be made of metallic silver which is electrically conductive paragraph [0074] the first metal functional layer 46 may have a thickness in the range of 50-150 angstroms and the second metal functional layer 52 may be a continuous layer having a thickness in the range of 10-150 angstroms paragraph [0076-0078] as shown in fig. 3A which is less than 100nm as specified in application pg.9 line 10-20).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the composite pane is equipped with a further high- refractive-index coating on the surface of the outer pane facing away from the thermoplastic intermediate layer (the composite pane laminate 12 may also include an enhanced p-polarized reflective high index coating 36 positioned over at least a portion of one of the surfaces 24, 26, 30, 32 of the plies 22, 28 paragraph [0050] the reflective coating 36 can be placed on a surface of the outer pane 24 facing away from intermediate layer 34 fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the outer pane and the inner pane are made of soda lime glass (the plies 22, 28 may include conventional soda-lime-silicate glass paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the composite pane (laminate 12 fig. 1) is a windshield of a passenger car (laminate 12 can be a windshield of a vehicle paragraph [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the angle of incidence (the angle the radiation strikes the laminate 12 is 60° fig. 7).
Wagener does not disclose, wherein the angle of incidence is from 62° to 68°.
However, the angle of incidence corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the angle of incidence directly impacts the e.g. reflectance of the p-polarized light. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 angle of incidence for the purpose of e.g. optimizing reflectance of the p-polarized light.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 3.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high refractive-index coating.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating is at least 2.0.
However Lu further discloses, the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating (transparent nanofilm 14 has a stacked structure of a high refractive index layer paragraph [0045] of translation) is at least 1.8 (the high index is not less than 1.8 paragraph [0045] of translation).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the high refractive coating as taught by Lu in the display system of Wagner. The reflection of part of the P-polarized light 101 by the transparent nanofilm 14 forms the main image of the head-up display image visible to the human eye 200 (paragraph [0047] of translation).
Additionally, the refractive index corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the refractive index directly impacts the e.g. refractive quality of the coating. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 refractive index for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the refractive quality of the coating.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 10 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the at least one electrically conductive layer is based on silver (the metal functional layer can be made of metallic silver which is electrically conductive paragraph [0074]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 A1) in view of Lu (CN 106646874 B) and Matsunami (JP 2010079197 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Asakura et al. (US 5999314 A).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the high-refractive-index coating is not applied over the entire surface of the inner pane, but at least on a region of the surface that contains the HUD region.
However Asakura discloses in figure 1, wherein the high-refractive-index coating (Brewster angle adjustment film 3 fig. 1 has a refractive index of 2.0 col. 7 lines 46-48) is not applied over the entire surface (the Brewster angle adjustment film 3 is only on the HUD region area of the of the inner pane 1B fig. 1) of the inner pane (inboard-side glass plate 1B fig. 3), but at least on a region of the surface that contains the HUD region (the HUD region is the area the where the light from display 6 strikes the laminated glass 5 fig. 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to only apply the high refractive index coating on the HUD region as taught by Asakura in the display of Wagner. The reflection is negligible resulting in a clear image of the driving information top the driver (col. 3 lines 5-10).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 A1) in view of Lu (CN 106646874 B) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Bellman (TW 202011051 А).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating has a gradient, wherein the refractive index decreases in a direction from a lower edge to an upper edge of the composite pane.
Bellman discloses wherein the refractive index of the high-refractive-index coating has a gradient, wherein the refractive index decreases in a direction from a lower edge to an upper edge of the composite pane (the partial coating design of Example 1 as a graph of refractive index versus position shows the refractive index of the coating decreases from 2 to 1.5 from a lower thickness of 1900 nm to a higher thickness of 2100 nm fig.19).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply a high index coating using the gradient method as taught by Bellman to the display of Wagner. The presence of one or more gradient portions may provide improved resistance to scratches and damage (pg.9 para. 2).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 A1) in view of Lu (CN 106646874 B) and Matsunami (JP 2010079197 A) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Dizio et al. (US 20080079903 А1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Wagner further discloses, wherein the HUD reflection layer (reflective coating 36 fig. 1) is an HUD reflection coating (reflective coating 36 fig. 1).
Wagner does not disclose, that is implemented as a thin-film that contains only dielectric layers.
However Dizio discloses in at least fig. 3, that is implemented as a thin-film stack (multilayer reflective polarizing film 12 fig. 3) that contains only dielectric layers (first layer 22 and second layer 24 may be a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film and a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film paragraph [0026] which are dielectric and the layers 22 and 24 repeat without other layers in reflective polarizing film 12 fig. 2).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use dielectric film as taught by Dizio in the HUD reflection layer of Wagner. The composition of the multilayer film can be given the optical properties desired for a particular system paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the HUD reflection layer is a polymer film that includes a plurality of polymeric plies, the plurality of polymeric plies including one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index greater than 1.8 and one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8, and wherein the one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index greater than 1.8 and the one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8 are arranged alternatingly.
However, Dizio discloses in at least fig. 3 wherein the HUD reflection layer is a polymer film that includes a plurality of polymeric plies (first layer 22 and second layer 24 fig. 3), the plurality of polymeric plies (first layer 22 and second layer 24 fig. 3) including one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index (first layer 22 may be a relatively high index layer polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film paragraph [0026] PEN films are known to have a refractive index of around 1.76) and one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8 (second layer 24 may be a low index layer a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film paragraph [0026] PET film is known to have a refractive index of around 1.64), and
wherein the one or more polymeric plies (first layer 22 and second layer 24 fig. 3) with a refractive index (first layer 22 may be a relatively high index layer polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) film paragraph [0026] PEN films are known to have a refractive index of around 1.76) and the one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index lower than 1.8 (second layer 24 may be a low index layer a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film paragraph [0026] PET film is known to have a refractive index of around 1.64)are arranged alternatingly (the layers 22 and 24 alternate fig. 3).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to apply the polymer reflection layer as taught by Dizio to the display of Wagner. The multilayer polymer film is designed for use in in an optical system [0025]). than 1.8.
Dizio does not explicitly disclose, one or more polymeric plies with a refractive index greater
However, the refractive index corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the refractive index directly impacts the e.g. the refractive properties of the film. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 refractive index for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the refractive properties of the film.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al. (US 20190064516 A1) in view of Lu (CN 106646874 B) and Matsunami (JP 2010079197 A) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of Reymond et al. (US 20140022630).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Matsunami discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Wagner does not explicitly disclose, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most 50 nm.
However Reymond discloses, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most 50 nm (the physical thickness of the high refractive index layers of at least 2.2 is from 10 to 40 nm paragraph [0022]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the reflective layer as taught by Reymond in the display of Wagner. The high refractive index layer is part of a dielectric coating (paragraph [0041]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Wagner, Lu and Reymond discloses all the limitations of claim 18.
Wagner does not disclose, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most
However Reymond further discloses, wherein the thickness of the high-refractive-index coating is at most 50 nm (the physical thickness of the high refractive index layers of at least 2.2 is from 10 to 40 nm paragraph [0022)).
Additionally, the thickness corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the thickness directly impacts the e.g. the refractive index of the coating. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, Inre Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 to at most 10nm for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the refractive index.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamada et al. (US 20090201583 A1) discloses a Polarizing Film for a Window with a high refractive index film.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872