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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-2, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, The term “in the order presented” as it appears in the claim renders the claim indefinite. It’s unclear whether the ITO or IZO layer is in the order presented or that each of the claimed layers are in the order presented.
Regarding Claim 2, The term “a low reflective layer” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ a low reflective layer” is not defined by the claim. What is considered a low reflective layer may be interpreted differently therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding Claims 3 and 6, The term “a high refractive index” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a high refractive index” is not defined by the claim. What is considered a high refractive index may be interpreted differently therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamada (WO Patent No. 2020022270).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamada teaches a film heater comprising (Paragraph 1, Transparent conductive film for heaters): a substrate (Figure 3, Substrate 11); a first hard coat layer containing a first resin component (Paragraph 21 and Figure 3, Hard coat layer 18) and a silica filler (Paragraph 82, Hard Coat are made up of silica and resins components); a first dielectric layer (Paragraph 20, A first metal oxide layer 12, Metal oxides are dielectric); a metal layer containing one or both of silver and silver alloy (Paragraph 42, The metal layer 16 is a layer containing silver or a silver alloy as its main component); a second dielectric layer (Paragraph 20, A second metal oxide layer 14, Metal oxides are dielectric); wherein a thickness of the metal layer is 5.5 to 7.5 nm (Paragraph 68, The thickness of the metal layer 16 was set to 7 nm), an ITO layer or an IZO layer in the order presented (Paragraph 70, ITO Layer used in the film), a peak intensity indicating a Ka line of silicon element detected by fluorescent X-ray analysis of a surface on the first dielectric layer side of the first hard coat layer is 15 to 35 cps (Paragraph 60 and MPEP 2112.01 I and II, Apparatus is subjected to X-ray fluorescence device).
Yamada teaches all the layers and produces a film identical in composition and arrangement as the claimed invention. Therefore, the properties applicant discloses or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01 I and II).
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 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO Patent No. 2020022270) in view of Kondo (JP Patent No. 2018020771) and further in view of Suh (KR Patent No. 20170024830).
Yamada teaches a second hard coat layer (Figure 3, Second Hard Coat Layer 19) containing a second resin component (Paragraph 82, Hard Coat are made up of silica and resins components with an in inherent refractive index of 1.46) and a Substrate (Paragraph 23 Made up of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which has an inherent refractive index of 1.57 to 1.64).
Yamada fails to teach a low reflective layer in the order presented from the substrate side on a side opposite to the first hard coat layer of the substrate, wherein the low reflective layer has a refractive index that is less than that of the substrate and that of the second hard coat layer and greater than that of air.
Kondo teaches a window that receives information on outside light conditions (Paragraph 1, Window) where the low reflective layer has a refractive index that is less than that of the substrate and that of the second hard coat layer and greater than that of air(Paragraph 59, The refractive index of a low-reflection film is 1.25 to 1.40).
Yamada and Kondo teaches all the layers and produces a film identical in composition and arrangement as the claimed invention. Therefore, the properties applicant discloses or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01 I and II). The combination of Yamada and Kondo teaches that the refractive index of the reflection film this lower than the second hard coat and the substrate but higher than air which is around 1.0003.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada to incorporate a low reflection layer as stated in Kondo. The low reflection layer prevent the interior dashboard from being reflected on the inner surface of the vehicle and improvers visibility (Paragraph 6, Reflection layer).
Yamada in view of Kondo fails to teach the arrangement of the reflection layer.
Suh teaches a smart window coating with a thermal insulation function (Paragraph 1, Smart window coating with a thermal insulation function) where a low reflective layer (Figure 3, Reflective layer 220) in the order presented from the substrate side on a side opposite to the first hard coat layer of the substrate (Figure 3, Reflective layer 220 is below the transparent substrate 210).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada in view of Kondo to incorporate the low reflection layer as stated in Suh. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamada in view of Kondo fails to teach that a high refractive index layer is between the first hard coat layer and the first dielectric layer.
Suh teaches a smart window coating with a thermal insulation function (Paragraph 1, Smart window coating with a thermal insulation function) where a high refractive index layer is between the first hard coat layer and the first dielectric layer (Figure 2-3, Refractive Layer 122/222).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO Patent No. 2020022270) in view of Suh (KR Patent No. 20170024830).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamada fails to teach that a high refractive index layer is between the first hard coat layer and the first dielectric layer.
Suh teaches a smart window coating with a thermal insulation function (Paragraph 1, Smart window coating with a thermal insulation function) where a high refractive index layer is between the first hard coat layer and the first dielectric layer (Figure 2-3, Refractive Layer 122/222).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada to incorporate a high refractive index layer as stated in Suh. The refractive layer enables the shielding of infrared rays from sunlight while maintaining visible light transmittance (Paragraph 12-15, Refractive layer).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO Patent No. 2020022270).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamada teaches a content of the silica filler with respect to the first resin component of the first hard coat layer is 8 to 20% by mass (Paragraph 82, Showcases contents of the of Silica and resin by mass).
Yamada teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the content of the silica filler with respect to the first resin component of the first hard coat layer to be between 8 to 20% by mass. The amount of silica would result in controlling the refractive index of the hard coats. The refractive index controls how much light is bent when it passes the layers. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II.
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of content of the silica filler with respect to the first resin component of the first hard coat layer to be between 8 to 20% by mass since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). MPEP 2144.05-II-A.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (WO Patent No. 2020022270) in view of Yoshikai (US Patent No. 5911899).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamada teaches a heater-equipped glass, comprising: the film heater (Yamada: Paragraph 1 and 17, Transparent conductive film for heaters with Glass plate 40)
Yamada fails to teach an electrode on a surface of the ITO layer or the IZO layer; and a glass plate facing the ITO layer or the IZO layer and the electrode.
Yoshikai teaches a transparent heater panel (Abstract, A transparent heater panel) an electrode on a surface of the ITO layer or the IZO layer (Figure 5 and Col 8 Line 3-7, Electrodes 5 and 5' are on surface of transparent conductive layer 3 which is made of ITO.); and a glass plate facing the ITO layer or the IZO layer and the electrode (Figure 5 and Col 7 Line 15-25, Transparent Substrate 2 which can be a glass plate faces the ITO layer and electrodes).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yamada to incorporate the electrode as stated in Yoshikai. The electrodes are treated to protect them from corrosion (Col 7 Line 2-7, Electrode).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights