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 Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 1/13/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive; the rejection has been updated to address the newly amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 and 11-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirose et al (U.S. Pub #2011/0165394), in view of Schmidt et al (U.S. Pub #2016/0059605), in view of Lu (U.S. Pub #2009/0032098).
With respect to claim 1, Hirose teaches an ultraviolet light shielding article comprising:
a) a flexible substrate (Fig. 6, F) having a major surface; and
b) a multilayer optical film (Fig. 6, LHLH) disposed on the major surface of the substrate, wherein the multilayer optical film is comprised of at least a plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers (Fig. 6, L and H; Paragraph 99) collectively reflecting and absorbing light,
an average of at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light over at least a 30-nanometer wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190 nanometers (nm) to 400 nm (Fig. 1 and Paragraph 99).
Hirose does not teach that the substrate is flexible.
Schmidt teaches a multilayer optical film that is provided on a substrate that is flexible (Paragraph 58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the substrate of Hirose to be flexible as taught by Schmidt in order to achieve the predictable result of forming a rollable glass (Paragraph 58).
Hirose does not specifically disclose that the reflected light is determined at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°.
Schmidt teaches a multilayer optical film, wherein the reflection and absorption performance is determined at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75° (Paragraph 99).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the substrate of Hirose to be flexible as taught by Schmidt in order to achieve the predictable result of accurately determining reflectance and transmittance (Paragraph 99).
Hirose does not teach
wherein the outermost optical layer is a second optical layer and has a thickness of at least 70 nm, and wherein at least one of the first optical layers nearest to the exterior of the film or nearest to the substrate has a thickness of at most 95%, 90%, 85%, or at most 80% of the other first optical layers,
wherein the ultraviolet light shielding article transmits at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 90 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm.
Lu teaches a UV shielding article wherein the outermost optical layer is a second optical layer and has a thickness of at least 70 nm (Fig. 1, 2B; Paragraph 20, 104 nm), and wherein at least one of the first optical layers nearest to the exterior of the film or nearest to the substrate has a thickness of at most 95%, 90%, 85%, or at most 80% of the other first optical layers (Fig. 1, 2a and Paragraph 20; 23 nm compared to e.g. 31 nm and 94 nm);
wherein the ultraviolet light shielding article transmits at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 90 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 2-3 and Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the first optical layer nearest to the exterior of Hirose to having a thickness of at most 95% of other first optical layers as taught by Lu in order to optimize the article for UV and IR shielding (Paragraph 18 and 22).
With respect to claim 2, Hirose teaches that the alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively absorb at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident light over at least a 30-nanometer wavelength bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190 nm to less than 350 nm (Fig. 1 and Paragraph 80 and 99).
With respect to claim 3, Hirose teaches that the alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively reflect at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident light over at least a 30-nanometer wavelength bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190nm to less than 400 nm, 190nm to 240 nm, 240 nm to 300 nm, 300 nm to 350 nm, 350 nm to less than 400 nm, or any combination thereof (Fig. 1, and Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 4, Hirose teaches that the alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively transmit at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 1, and Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 5, Hirose teaches that the substrate is transparent (Paragraph 20), but does not specifically disclose
transmits an average of at least 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the substrate of Hirose to transmits an average of at least 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm because 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). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
With respect to claim 6, Hirose teaches that the substrate comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Paragraph 321), a crosslinked polysiloxane, a silicone thermoplastic polymer, a crosslinked urethane, a thermoplastic urethane, a crosslinked (meth)acrylate, PMMA, coPMMA, a polyimide, a cyclic olefin copolymer, a cyclic olefin polymer, a polycarbonate, PEN, or a fluoropolymer (co)polymer comprising polymerized units derived from one or more monomers selected from tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene, vinylidene fluoride, a perfluoroalkoxy alkylene, a vinyl fluoride, or a combination thereof.
With respect to claim 7, Hirose teaches that the first optical layer comprises at least one of niobium oxide, titanium oxide, silicon oxynitride, molybdenum oxide, tungsten oxide, silicon nitride, indium tin oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, zirconium oxynitride, zirconium oxide, aluminum zinc oxide, or zinc oxide and wherein the second optical layer comprises at least one of silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, aluminum fluoride, magnesium fluoride, calcium fluoride, indium tin oxide, or zinc oxide (Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 8, Hirose teaches that the first optical layer comprises at least one of niobium oxide or titanium oxide, and wherein the second optical layer comprises silicon oxide (Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 11, Hirose teaches that the multilayer optical film has a thickness of 200 nm to 900 nm (Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 12, Hirose teaches that each of the first and second optical layers independently has a thickness of 5 nm to 200 nm (Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 13, Hirose teaches that the multilayer optical film is formed of 3 to 21 total first and second optical layers (Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 14, Hirose teaches that the plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively reflect and absorb at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light over at least a 30-nanometer wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190 nm to 400 nm (Fig. 1 and Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 15, Hirose teaches that the plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively reflect and absorb at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light over at least a 30-nanometer wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190 nm to 240 nm, 240 nm to 300 nm, 300 nm to 350 nm, 350 nm to 400 nm, or any combination thereof (Fig. 1 and Paragraph 99).
With respect to claim 16, Hirose teaches that the plurality of alternating first and second inorganic optical layers collectively reflect and absorb at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75° an average of at least 60, 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident ultraviolet light over at least a 50-nanometer (Paragraph 99, 300-360 nm), 75-nanometer, 100- nanometer. 125-nanometer, 150-nanometer, or 175-nanometer wavelength reflection bandwidth in a wavelength range from 190 nm to 400 nm.
With respect to claim 17, Hirose teaches that the article transmits at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 50, 60. 70, 80, 90, or 95 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 1).
Lu teaches a UV shielding article
wherein the ultraviolet light shielding article transmits at an incident light angle of at least one of 0°, 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, or 75°, an average of at least 95 percent of incident visible light in a wavelength range from greater than 400 nm to 700 nm (Fig. 2-3 and Paragraph 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to form the first optical layer nearest to the exterior of Hirose to having a thickness of at most 95% of other first optical layers as taught by Lu in order to optimize the article for UV and IR shielding (Paragraph 18 and 22).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the article to have a transmittance of greater than 95% because 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). See also MPEP 2144.05 II.
Furthermore, the transmittance of the article (due to the structural properties of the layers) is a result effective variable; i.e. the efficiency of the device is increased with increasing transmittance (Paragraph 4 and 6 of Lu).
With respect to claim 18, an average transmission of wavelengths between 400 nm and 700 nm through the article is reduced by less than 20%, 10%.5%, or less than 1% after exposure to a dose of ultraviolet light of 425 megajoules per square centimeter (MJ/cm2) or 850 MJ/cm2.
, note that a "product by process" claim is directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17 (footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA); In re Marosi et al., 218 USPQ 289 (CAFC); and most recently, In re Thorpe et al., 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC, 1985) all of which make it clear that it is the final product per se which must be determined in a "product by process" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that, as here, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not patentable as a product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that Applicant has burden of proof in such cases as the above case law makes clear
As to the grounds of rejection, see MPEP § 2113 section 1.
With respect to claim 19, Hirose teaches a solar cell cover comprising the ultraviolet light shielding article of claim 1 (Paragraph 225).
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 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 BENJAMIN P SANDVIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8446. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10-6.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)-272-1945. 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. 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.
/BENJAMIN P SANDVIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812