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 .
Status Of Claims
Claims 1-20, received 6/23/2023, are pending for examination.
If applicant is aware of any relevant prior art, or other co-pending application not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 5, “visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns”. It is noted that specification paragraph [0018] recites “visible light wavelength of 500 nm”. There is no visible wavelength at 500 microns. Therefore, claim 5 has been interpreted as reciting “visible light at a wavelength of 500 nm”.
In claim 19, “an infrared-light-transmitting-and-visible-light-blocking thin-film interference filter coating” is not supported by the specification. Throughout the specification the system is described as blocking infrared light and transmitting visible light (i.e. the opposite of claim 19). See for example at least paragraphs [0004], [0011]-[0012], [0018]. For the purpose of this examination, in claim 19 “an infrared-light-transmitting-and-visible-light-blocking thin-film interference filter coating” is interpreted as “an infrared-light-blocking-and-visible-light-transmitting thin-film interference filter coating”.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) filed on 6/23/2023 was considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The term “visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns” in claim 5 is used by the claim to describe visible light while there is no accepted meaning of visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns. Additionally, in claim 5, “visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns” conflicts with at least specification paragraph [0018] which recites “visible light wavelength of 500 nm”. Therefore, the language of claim 5 is clearly not enabled/supported by the specification.
Claims 6-10 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 5.
In claim 19, “an infrared-light-transmitting-and-visible-light-blocking thin-film interference filter coating” conflicts with the specification. Throughout the specification the system is described as blocking infrared light and transmitting visible light (i.e. the opposite of claim 19). See for example at least specification paragraphs [0004], [0011]-[0012], [0018]. Therefore, the language of claim 19 is clearly not enabled/supported by the specification.
Claim 20 is rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-10 and 19-20 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns” in claim 5 is used by the claim to describe visible light while there is no accepted meaning of visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns. Additionally, in claim 5, “visible light at a wavelength of 500 microns” conflicts with at least specification paragraph [0018] which recites “visible light wavelength of 500 nm”. Therefore, the intended scope of the claim is unclear as the metes-and-bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claims 6-10 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 5.
In claim 19, “an infrared-light-transmitting-and-visible-light-blocking thin-film interference filter coating” conflicts with the specification. Throughout the specification the system is described as blocking infrared light and transmitting visible light (i.e. the opposite of claim 19). See for example at least specification paragraphs [0004], [0011]-[0012], [0018]. Therefore, it is not clear if the coating of claim 19 is intended to block or transmit infrared wavelengths, and transmit or block visible wavelengths, and the intended scope of the claim is unclear as the metes-and-bounds of the claim cannot be determined.
Claim 20 is rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 19.
Claim 7 recites a minimum lateral dimension of 2-400 microns, and a maximum lateral dimension of 2-400 microns. Both the minimum and maximum lateral dimension are the exact same range. Therefore, scope of claim 7 cannot be determined. For the purpose of this examination, “the metal islands each have a minimum lateral dimension of 2-400 microns and each have a maximum lateral dimension of 2-400 microns” has been interpreted as “the metal islands each have a lateral dimension of 2-400 microns”.
Claims 8-10 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 7.
Claim 13 recites minimum lateral dimensions of 25 microns to 400 microns, and maximum lateral dimensions of 25 to 400 microns. Both the minimum and maximum lateral dimension are the exact same range. Therefore, scope of claim 13 cannot be determined. For the purpose of this examination, “the isolated metal islands have minimum lateral dimensions of 25 microns to 400 microns and have maximum lateral dimensions of 25 to 400 microns” has been interpreted as “the isolated metal islands have lateral dimensions 25 to 400 microns”.
Claims 14-18 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies of claim 13.
Other Related Art
This prior art, made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure since the following references have similar structure and/or use similar optical elements to what is claimed and/or disclosed in the instant application:
Yunos et al., US 2025/0368569 A1, discloses a coated glass layer including isolated metal islands for passing radio (figs. 1-3, abstract, paras. [0010]-[0025]); and
Voeltzel, US 2003/0080909 A1, discloses a coated glass layer including isolated metal islands for passing radio (figs. 1-6, paras. [0023]-[0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang).
Regarding claim 11, Jiang discloses a system, comprising:
a support (see at least elements 16, 16M, col. 2, lines 21-67); and
a window in the support, wherein the window has a glass layer (see at least elements 16, 16M, col. 2, lines 21-67) coated with a radio-transparent coating that at least partly blocks infrared light and at least partly transmits visible light and that has a metal layer with isolated metal islands (see at least elements 30, 32, 86, 88, the abstract and col. 3, line 12 through col. 4, line 24).
Regarding claim 12, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 11, and window and the support are configured to separate an exterior region from an interior region, the system further comprising a radio-frequency transceiver in the interior region that is configured to transmit and receive radio-frequency signals through the radio-transparent coating (see at least col. 1, lines 16-24; col. 4, lines 1-50 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 12, and wherein the isolated metal islands have lateral dimensions of 25 to 400 microns (see at least col. 4, lines 5-10, and col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 2 of Jiang).
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang) in view of Wilson et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,453,580 B1 (hereafter Wilson).
Regarding claim 1, Jiang discloses a coated glass layer (see at least elements 16, 16M, col. 2, lines 21-67), comprising:
a layer of glass having a surface (see at least elements 16, 16M, col. 2, lines 21-67); and
a radio-transparent thin-film coating on the surface that includes a stack of thin-film layers, wherein the stack of thin-film layers includes blanket inorganic dielectric films (see at least elements 30, 86, 88, the abstract and col. 3, lines 12-42) and includes a metal layer that (see at least elements 30, 86, col. 3, lines 12-42) is separated into isolated metal islands (see at least elements 30, 32, col. 3, line 43 through col. 4, line 58).
Jiang does not specifically disclose that the thin-film coating is an interference filter.
However, Wilson is related to Jiang since both Jiang and Wilson are drawn to coated glass layers having patterned metal layers which block infrared and transmit radio (see at least the abstract of Jiang and the abstract, elements 28, 50, 60 of Wilson), and wherein Wilson teaches including a thin-film interference filter coating with a desired transmission, reflectivity and color, and which uses inorganic dielectric films (see at least col. 6, lines 1-20 of Wilson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang to include the teachings of Wilson so that the thin-film coating is an interference filter, for the purpose of using a well-known type of thin-film coating in the optical arts to achieve desired transmission and reflectivity.
Regarding claim 2, Jiang in view of Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 1, and wherein the metal layer is separated into the isolated metal islands by a grid of metal-free lines and wherein the metal-free lines have a linewidth of less than 100 microns (see at least col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 58 of Jiang).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang) in view of Wilson et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,453,580 B1 (hereafter Wilson) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Hassan et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,321,676 B2, of record (hereafter Hassan).
Regarding claims 3-4, Jiang further discloses that the metal layer is silver (see at least elements 30, 86, col. 3, lines 12-42 of Jiang).
Jiang in view of Wilson does not specifically disclose that the metal layer comprises a crystalline metal.
However, Hassan is related to Jiang since both Jiang and Hassan are drawn to coated glass layers having metal layers which block infrared and transmit visible wavelengths (see at least the abstract of Jiang and the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan), and wherein Hassan teaches including a crystalline silver layer for the best infrared reflection properties (see at least the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson to include the teachings of Hassan so that the metal layer comprises a crystalline metal, such as crystalline silver, for the purpose of achieving desired infrared reflection properties.
Claims 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang) in view of Wilson et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,453,580 B1 (hereafter Wilson) and Hassan et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,321,676 B2, of record (hereafter Hassan) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Ding, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0221636 A1 (hereafter Ding).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Jiang further discloses that the stack of thin-film layers is configured to provide the radio-transparent thin-film interference filter with a light transmission spectrum that blocks at least 70% of infrared light at a wavelength of 1.5 microns (see at least col. 3, lines 21-36 of Jiang) and that passes at least 70% of visible light (see at least col. 3, lines 21-36 of Jiang).
It is noted that claim 5 lacks any specific structure which would make the stack of thin-film layers be “configured to” provide the claimed blocking/transmission characteristics, such as the number of thin-film layers, the thicknesses of the thin-film layers, the refractive indices of the thin-film layers, the materials of the thin-film layers, etc.. Therefore, absent any difference in claimed structure which would differentiate the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson and Hassan from the claimed invention, the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson and Hassan is considered capable of achieving the claimed blocking/transmission characteristics, and is therefore interpreted as being “configured to provide the radio-transparent thin-film interference filter with a light transmission spectrum that blocks at least 70% of infrared light at a wavelength of 1.5 microns and that passes at least 70% of visible light at a wavelength of 500 nm”.
Additionally, it is emphasized that "[w]hile features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). Specifically, the claim does not provide any structural features, such as any structure associated with the thin-film layers, such as the number of filter layers, thicknesses, materials, and/or refractive indices of materials, which would distinguish the claim from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Jiang in view of Wilson and Hassan does not specifically disclose that the transmitted visible light is at a wavelength of 500 nm.
However, Ding is related to Jiang since both Jiang and Ding are drawn to coated glass layers having patterned metal layers which block infrared and transmit visible wavelengths (see at least the abstract of Jiang and the abstract, paras. [0028], [0030] and [0041] of Ding), and wherein Ding teaches transmitting greater than 70% of visible light is at a wavelength of 500 nm (see at least para. [0030] of Ding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson and Hassan to include the teachings of Ding so that the transmitted visible light is at a wavelength of 500 nm, for the purpose of achieving desired visible wavelength transmission properties at known visible light wavelengths.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding discloses the limitations of claim 5.
Jiang is silent as to the thickness of the metal islands, and therefore does not specifically disclose that each of the metal islands has a thickness of less than 16 nm.
However, Wilson further teaches that a thin layer of silver having a thickness of 2-30nm may be sufficiently thin to allow desired amounts of visible light to pass while blocking near infrared light (see at least col. 4, lines 14-19 and col. 5, lines 23-42 of Wilson); Hassan further teaches that a thin layer of silver may having a thickness of 10nm to reflect infrared (see at least col. 7, lines 49-60 of Hassan); and Ding further teaches a thin layer of silver may having a thickness of 5-40nm to block infrared (see at least para. [0044] of Ding).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding to include the further teachings of Wilson, Hassan and/or Ding so that each of the metal islands has a thickness of less than 16 nm, for the purpose of achieving desired transmission and blocking properties for desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding discloses the limitations of claim 6, and wherein the metal islands each have a lateral dimension of 2-400 microns (see at least col. 4, lines 5-10, and col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 2 of Jiang; and para. [0045] of Ding).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding discloses the limitations of claim 7, and wherein the lines have a linewidth of 0.2-20 microns (see at least col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 24, and col. 5, lines 55-67 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding discloses the limitations of claim 8. Jiang does not specifically disclose that the blanket inorganic dielectric films comprise a dielectric seed layer on which the metal layer is grown.
However, Hassan further teaches including a dielectric seed layer used to promote the deposition of the crystalline silver layer (see at least the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding to include the further teachings of Hassan so that the blanket inorganic dielectric films comprise a dielectric seed layer on which the metal layer is grown, for the purpose of promoting growth of the desired crystalline orientation of the metal layer during deposition.
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding discloses the limitations of claim 9. Jiang does not specifically disclose that the dielectric seed layer comprises aluminum-doped zinc oxide.
However, Hassan further teaches including that the dielectric seed layer used to promote the deposition of the crystalline silver layer may be zinc oxide or doped zinc oxide, and that aluminum, magnesium or bismuth may be used as dopants (see at least the col. 2, lines 5-22; col. 4, lines 24-37; col. 5, lines 41-55; col. 6, lines 8-33; col. 9, lines 45-67; col. 10, lines 41-49; col. 11, line 35 through col. 12, line 5; and col. 12, line 52 through col. 13, line 4 of Hassan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson, Hassan and Ding to include the further teachings of Hassan so that the dielectric seed layer comprises aluminum-doped zinc oxide, for the purpose of having good lattice matching while promoting growth of the desired crystalline orientation of the metal layer during deposition.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the dielectric seed layer comprise aluminum-doped zinc oxide, since it has been held to be within the ordinary skill of workers in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. One would have been motivated to have the dielectric seed layer comprise aluminum-doped zinc oxide, for the purpose of having good lattice matching while promoting growth of the desired crystalline orientation of the metal layer during deposition (see at least the col. 2, lines 5-22; col. 4, lines 24-37; col. 5, lines 41-55; col. 6, lines 8-33; col. 9, lines 45-67; col. 10, lines 41-49; col. 11, line 35 through col. 12, line 5; and col. 12, line 52 through col. 13, line 4 of Hassan). Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang) as applied to claim 11-13 above, and further in view of Hassan et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,321,676 B2, of record (hereafter Hassan).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Jiang discloses the limitations of claim 13.
Jiang is silent as to the thickness of the metal islands, and therefore does not specifically disclose that the isolated metal islands comprise crystalline metal with a thickness of less than 16 nm.
However, Hassan is related to Jiang since both Jiang and Hassan are drawn to coated glass layers having metal layers which block infrared and transmit visible wavelengths (see at least the abstract of Jiang and the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan), and wherein Hassan teaches that a thin layer of silver may have a thickness of 10nm to reflect infrared (see at least col. 7, lines 49-60 of Hassan). Hassan further teaches including a crystalline silver layer for the best infrared reflection properties (see at least the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang to include the teachings of Hassan so that the metal layer comprises a crystalline metal, such as crystalline silver, for the purpose of achieving desired infrared reflection properties.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang to include the teachings of Hassan so that each of the metal islands has a thickness of less than 16 nm, for the purpose of achieving desired transmission and blocking properties for desired wavelengths.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Jiang in view of Hassan discloses the limitations of claim 14, and wherein the isolated metal islands are separated by lines having linewidths of 2 microns to 50 microns (see at least col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 24, and col. 5, lines 55-67 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Jiang in view of Hassan discloses the limitations of claim 15, and wherein the radio-transparent coating contains a stack of inorganic dielectric layers (see at least col. 3, lines 12-42 of Jiang).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Jiang in view of Hassan discloses the limitations of claim 16.
Jiang does not specifically disclose that the inorganic dielectric layers comprise a seed layer for the crystalline metal.
However, Hassan further teaches including dielectric seed layers used to promote the deposition of the crystalline silver layer (see at least the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Hassan to include the further teachings of Hassan so that the inorganic dielectric layers comprise a seed layer for the crystalline metal, for the purpose of promoting growth of the desired crystalline orientation of the metal layer during deposition.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Jiang in view of Hassan discloses the limitations of claim 17, and wherein the isolated metal islands are arranged in a plurality of domains including a first domain in which the isolated metal islands have a first angular orientation and a second domain in which the isolated metal islands have a second angular orientation that is different than the first angular orientation (see at least elements 16A-16C, col. 3, line 61 through col. 4, line 58 of Jiang).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang) in view of Wilson et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,453,580 B1 (hereafter Wilson).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Jiang discloses a vehicle, comprising:
a vehicle body (see at least col. 2, lines 22-51 of Jiang);
a laminated glass window having a first glass layer laminated to a second glass layer with an elastomeric interlayer (see at least elements 16M, 84, col. 2, line 52 through col. 3, line 11 of Jiang);
an infrared-light-blocking-and-visible-light-transmitting thin-film coating on the first glass layer having an array of metal islands (see at least elements 30, 32, 86, 88, the abstract and col. 3, line 12 through col. 4, line 24 of Jiang); and a radio-frequency transceiver configured to transmit and receive radio-frequency signals through the infrared-light-blocking-and-visible-light-transmitting thin-film coating (see at least col. 1, lines 16-24; col. 4, line 1 through col. 5, line 46 of Jiang).
Jiang does not specifically disclose that the thin-film coating is an interference filter.
However, Wilson is related to Jiang since both Jiang and Wilson are drawn to coated glass layers having patterned metal layers which block infrared and transmit radio (see at least the abstract of Jiang and the abstract, elements 28, 50, 60 of Wilson), and wherein Wilson teaches including a thin-film interference filter coating with a desired transmission, reflectivity and color, and which uses inorganic dielectric films (see at least col. 6, lines 1-20 of Wilson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang to include the teachings of Wilson so that the thin-film coating is an interference filter, for the purpose of using a well-known type of thin-film coating in the optical arts to achieve desired transmission and reflectivity.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,978,777 B1 (hereafter Jiang) in view of Wilson et al., U.S. Patent Number 10,453,580 B1 (hereafter Wilson) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Hassan et al., U.S. Patent Number 9,321,676 B2, of record (hereafter Hassan).
Regarding claim 20, as best understood, Jiang in view of Wilson discloses the limitations of claim 19, wherein Jiang further discloses that the metal islands have maximum lateral dimensions of less than 200 microns (see at least col. 4, lines 5-10, and col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 2 of Jiang, and separated by lines with a linewidth of less than 20 microns (see at least col. 3, line 64 through col. 4, line 24, and col. 5, lines 55-67 of Jiang).
Jiang does not specifically disclose that the metal islands comprise crystalline silver islands and is silent as to the thickness of the metal islands, and therefore does not specifically disclose that the metal islands comprise crystalline silver with a thickness of less than 30 nm.
However, Hassan is related to Jiang since both Jiang and Hassan are drawn to coated glass layers having metal layers which block infrared and transmit visible wavelengths (see at least the abstract of Jiang and the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan), and wherein Hassan teaches including a crystalline silver layer for the best infrared reflection properties (see at least the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan). Hassan further teaches that a thin layer of silver may have a thickness of 10nm to reflect infrared (see at least col. 7, lines 49-60 of Hassan). Hassan further teaches including a crystalline silver layer for the best infrared reflection properties (see at least the abstract, col. 1, line 24 through col. 2, line 22 of Hassan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson to include the teachings of Hassan so that the metal layer comprises a crystalline metal, such as crystalline silver, for the purpose of achieving desired infrared reflection properties.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the coated glass layer of Jiang in view of Wilson to include the teachings of Hassan so that each of the metal islands has a thickness of less than 30 nm, for the purpose of achieving desired transmission and blocking properties for desired wavelengths.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEREK S. CHAPEL whose telephone number is (571)272-8042. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30am-6pm.
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, Stephone B. Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/Derek S. Chapel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/22/2025
Derek S. CHAPEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872