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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/11/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, 13-14, 16-18, 21 and 37-38 are pending examination, claims 2-10, 12, 15, 19-20, and 22-36 are canceled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) , 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/306511, PCT/US2017/035251, and 62/344147, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. None of the above prior-filed applications provide adequate support for at least features of independent claims 1 and 37 including “wherein the protective film comprises low density polyethylene, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyethylene naphthalate.”, “cutting the protective film with a laser, thereby resulting in an overhang from an edge of the substrate;”, “laminating the first substrate, with the protective film over the at least a portion of the exposed surface of the first substrate, to a second substrate,” “the surface of the second surface facing away from the first substrate is deposited with a second protective film and the surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate has an interlayer formed thereon” as well as additional content of claims 11, 14, 16-18, and 38.
Claim Interpretation
At [0076] of Applicant’s Specification it recites: “The exposed surface is the topmost layer formed on a substrate.” The examiner accepts this statement as a special definition for “exposed surface”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 13-14, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis et al (WO 2014/109759; hereafter Dupuis) in view of Abate (US 2005/0194086; hereafter Abate), Baker et al (US 2017/0329161; hereafter Baker), and Speakman (US 2011/0207328; hereafter Speakman).
Claims 1 and 37: Dupuis teaches method of fabricating an electrochromic device comprising an electrochromic stack (10) between a first transparent conductor layer (such as 9 or 6) deposited on or over a first substrate (such as 8 or 5 respectively) and a second transparent conductor layer (such as 6 or 9 respectively) (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2C, Fig 2D, Fig 4, pg 70); the method comprising:
depositing a first protective film (12, 15, or 13 ) over at least a portion of an exposed surface of the first substrate; and removing the first protective film, wherein the first protective film comprises polyester or polyethylene (See, for example, pg 40 lines 5-16, pg 42 lines 4-7, claim 50, 55, 63, Fig 2C, Fig 2D, Fig 4).
Dupuis further teaches laminating the first substrate (such as part 3 or part 4) to a second substrate (object 19), the second substrate having a surface facing the substrate and a surface facing away from the first substrate (See, for example, pg 58 lines 18-22, claims, Figures; wherein embodiments where either part 3 or part 4 are singularly taught to be adhered / laminated onto the surface of object 19). Dupuis further teaches wherein an interlayer (such as at least adhesive layer (14)) is provided on the surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate (see, for example, See, for example, pg 58 lines 18-22, claims, Figure4-5).
Dupuis is silent as the particulars of the part orientation and layer structure during lamination of a singular part, so it does not explicitly teach wherein the protective film is over the at least a portion of the exposed surface of the first substrate during the laminating of the first to the second substrate. Abate teaches a method of forming IGUs comprising functional, mulilayered films (See, for example, abstract, [0001], Figures). Abate further teaches wherein lamination of mulilayered films can predictably be performed while retaining the protective coating during lamination as it will predictably provide protection during lamination (See, for example, Fig 2-4, [0005], [0017-0018], claim 1). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed laminating the first substrate to the second substrate with the protective film over the at least a portion of the exposed surface of the first substrate since retention of the protective film during lamination would predictably allow the protective film to achieve its intended use of protecting underlying surfaces, and thus reduce damage thereto.
Dupuis is view of Abate teaches the above, wherein the application of first protective layer is provided to protect its underlying surface, but it does not explicitly teach the surface of the second surface facing away from the first substrate is also deposited with a second protective film. Baker teaches a method for lamination of two substrates through a nip (See, for example, abstract, [0090], Fig 2). Baker further teaches wherein both out surfaces undergoing the lamination process are known to be prone to damage / scratching during such lamination, and therefore both such outer surfaces can be prelaminated with a protective film to ensure protection against scratches from the lamination process. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally deposited a second protective film upon the surface of the second surface facing away from the first substrate as such an outer surface is recognized in the art to similarly be prone to scratching during lamination processes, and thus, like the exposed surface of the first substrate, would similarly benefit from the improved protective properties, including scratch prevention, of a protective layer being applied thereto; additionally / alternatively application of a duplicate layer upon the opposing surface to predictably provide the same protective function is obviated as it is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Dupuis does not explicitly teach cutting of the protective film with a stationary laser, thereby resulting in an overhang from an edge of the substrate. Speakman teaches a method of application and removal of a protective film over an exposed surface of a substrate (see, for example, abstract, [0013-0017], Figures). Speakman further teaches wherein the application of such a removable film can be readily cut from a continuous roll of material by laser cutting, and further wherein its cut dimensions can include an overhang portion (peel off tab 154) to facilitate removal (See, for example, Fig 13b-f, [0627-0628], [0688], [1005]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated cutting the protective film with a laser resulting in an overhang from an edge of the substrate as it would facilitate removal / peelability of the protective film and as it provides a predictable means to reproducibly size such a material from a stock supply to the desired dimensions.
Speakman is silent as to the configuration of the laser with respect to the film, so although it does not explicitly teach a stationary laser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a stationary laser since the fact that a claimed device is particularly stationary / or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) and since a reference disclosure can anticipate / render obvious a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)) herein there are only two alternatives, stationary or not stationary thus either configuration is readily foreseeable and yielding of predictable results
Claim 11: Dupuis further teaches wherein depositing the first protective film comprises applying a pressure to the protective film with an adhesive composition between the protective film and the first substrate, and wherein the adhesive composition comprises a water-based acrylic adhesive (See, for example, Fig pg 25 line 4-20, pg 53 lines 1-3, and pg 67 line 19- pg 68 line 2) wherein the adhesive is taught to be a water based pressure sensitive adhesive, further an acrylic (such as acrylic aster copolymer, or polyacrylate) and the adhesive is taught to be applied to the protective film which is then subsequently applied onto the exposed surface of the substrate, by pressure (via lamination) thereon.
Additionally / alternatively although no singular exemplary embodiment is provided in Dupuis with depositing the first protective film via a pressure to the protective wherein the adhesive composition comprises a water-based acrylic adhesive, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated pressure application with a water-based acrylic adhesive since a reasonable expectation of success exists from choosing the specific taught species from explicitly taught lists. Further when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated (rendered obvious) no matter how many other species are additionally named. Ex parte A 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Claim 13: As described in the rejection of claim 1 above, Speakman has taught removal via peeling, and Dupuis teaches laminating the first substrate (such as part 4) to a second substrate (object 19) (See, for example, pg 58 lines 18-22, claims, Figures; wherein embodiments where either part 3 or part 4 are singularly taught to be adhered / laminated onto the surface of object 19). By the relying upon the embodiment of part 4, wherein the first substrate is interpreted as 8 and the protective film 13 is deposited on the EC stack (10) layer which is the topmost layer formed on the first substrate 8; in order to allow layer 13 to protect the underlying surface from damage during lamination (see combination with Abate above) and to further allow layer 10 to subsequently interface with layer 11 of part 3 (as dictated by Dupuis) the orientation during lamination would require that the surface of protective layer 13 to face away from the second substrate and thus the protective film (13) would be removed / peeled to provide for interfacing with layer 11 to achieve the ultimate device architecture).
Claim 14: Dupuis teaches wherein the protective film comprises polyester (See, for example, pg 40 lines 50-16, pg 42 lines 4-7, claim 50, 55, 63). As the recitation in claim 14 only conditionally limits one (low density polyethylene) of the four species of protective film recited in claim 1; this limitation is met by the teaching of Dupuis to one of the alternative species (polyester).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis in view of Abate, Baker, and Speakman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keifer et al (US 2020/0183243; hereafter Keifer) and Holzer et al (US 2004/0146730; hereafter Holzer).
Claim 16: Dupuis in view of Abate, Baker, and Speakman teaches the method of claim 1 above, and Dupuis further teaches formation of laminate multilayer film (4) comprising an electrochromic layer, a transparent conductive layer, a PET substrate layer and a protective film (See, for example, pg 40 lines 50-16, pg 42 lines 4-7, claim 23, 50, 55, 63). But does not explicitly teach wherein applying a pressure as claimed to the protective film by two or more adjacent rollers. Keifer teaches a method of assembling a laminate multilayer film (4) comprising an electrochromic layer, a transparent conductive layer, a PET substrate layer and an additional transparent flexible protective film (See, for example, [0058], [0071], abstract, Fig 9). Keifer teaches wherein a simpler and cheaper alternative to vapor and liquid deposition of the EC gel layer onto the TEC coated substrates, such a multilayer laminate can predictably be formed via hot pressing by passing the EC layer, substrate and protective polymeric layer through a nip roller system of two or more adjacent rollers, as it provides for enhance control over simple and complex shapes providing masked areas (See, for example, [0040], [0053], [0062], [0071-0072], Fig 9). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated forming the EC sandwiched multilayer film by a hot pressing method comprising depositing the protective film over at least a portion of the substrate by passing the substrate and protective film through adjacent rollers under pressure since it would predictably achieve EC sandwiched multilayer film via a simplified and inexpensive process further allowing for enhanced control over simple and complex shapes providing masked areas. But Keifer is silent as to an appropriate pressure for lamination, so it does not explicitly teach wherein a pressure of about 50 PSI to about 300 PSI is provided to the protective film by the two or more adjacent rollers. Holzer teaches a method directed to lamination of a temporary protective film (such as PS or PET) onto an article to prevent damage during transport and between processing [0001], [0012-13], [0049]). Holzer further teaches that the application of pressure greater than 10N/cm2 (~14.5 PSI) can assist lamination and is dictated by the mode and shape of the article (see, for example, [0009], [0100]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pressure of greater than 14.5 PSI to film by the adjacent press rollers as it would predictably enhance lamination, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. Although such a range is not explicitly a pressure of about 50 PSI to about 300 PSI C as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pressure within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis in view of Abate, Baker, and Speakman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhatnagar et al (US 2014/0329006; hereafter Bhatnagar).
Claim 17: Dupuis in view of Abate, Baker, and Speakman teaches the method of claim 1 above. Dupuis further teaches multilayered films comprising transparent conducting oxide layers and overlying deposited electrochromic device layers and protective layer (see, for example, pg 40 lines 50-16, pg 42 lines 4-7, claim 23, 50, 55, 63 Fig 2 and 4). But Dupuis does not explicitly teach a step of polishing prior to depositing the protective film. Bhatnagar teaches a method of fabricating multilayered optical devices, further electrochromic devices (See, for example, abstract, [0013-0017]). Bhatnagar teaches wherein after the substrate having a transparent conducting layer thereon is received it should be polished and washed / cleaned prior to subsequent application of EC device layers in order to reduce defectivity (See, for example, Fig 1, [0015-0016]] [0021], [0026], [0058]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a step of polishing and washing the TCO coated first substrate upon its receipt prior to subsequent processing including application of EC layer and the sacrificial coating as it would predictably reduce defectivity in the subsequently formed EC device.
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dupuis in view of Abate, Baker, and Speakman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooprider et al (WO9803958; hereafter Cooprider).
Claim 38: Dupuis in view of Abate, Baker, and Speakman teaches the method of claim 1 above, but Speakman is silent as to suitable overhang length for its peel off tab, so it does not explicitly teach an edge overhang of from 1 to 5 cm. Cooprider teaches a method directed to the application of a temporary film (See, for example, abstract). Cooprider further teaches wherein graspable tabs similarly designed to enhance removal of the film possess tab widths of 0.5 to 2 cm, and wherein provide an economy wherein too narrow and results in difficulty in grabbing, and too wide results in the possibility of curling, crumpling or damage (See, for example, pg 7 line 28 – pg 8 line 11) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an edge overhang of from 0.5 to 2 cm since such an amount would predictably facilitate grasping for removal while avoiding damage. Although such a dimension is not explicitly 1-5 cm as claimed Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an overhang within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 1, 13-14, 21, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker et al (US 2019/0345058; hereafter Parker) in view of Nachtigal et al (US 2015/0243816; hereafter Nachtigal), Speakman, Strong et al (US 2014/0340731; hereafter Strong), and Baker.
Claims 1 and 37: Parker teaches method of fabricating an electrochromic device comprising an electrochromic stack (406) between a first transparent conductor layer (404) deposited on or over a substrate (402) and a second transparent conductor layer (412) (See, for example, abstract, Fig 4A); the method comprising:
depositing a protective film (sacrificial coating ) over at least a portion of an exposed surface of the substrate and removing the protective film (See, for example, abstract, Table 1 [0044], [0070]); Parker further teaches wherein sacrificial protective film can be organic and polymeric (See, for example, [0055], [0065]), but it does not explicitly teach it as comprising low density polyethylene, polyester, polyethylene terephthalate, or polyethylene naphthalate. Nachtigal teaches a method of forming multilayered assemblies, including for electrochromic devices, involving the application of temporary protective films (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1B-D, [0045]). Nachtigal further teaches wherein such protective films comprising polyester / polyethylene terephthalate can be removed by peeling and provide the intended protection, improved adhesive ability, and leave minimal residue on the underlying surface upon removal (See, for example, [0012] [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the protective film as comprising polyester, or polyethylene terephthalate since such materials perform predictably as temporary protective film for multilayered assemblies, including electrochromic devices while further providing improved adhesion during application and reduced residue upon removal.
Parker in view of Nachtigal teaches the method above, and Parker further teaches application of a temporary protective film to prevent scratching and damage to underlying surfaces during processing /transport, and wherein the film can be deposited in solid form (See, for example, [0002] ) and Nachtigal further teaches the protective film can be applied via lamination of a solid film (See, for example, [0043]). But they do not explicitly teach cutting of the protective film with a stationary laser, thereby resulting in an overhang from an edge of the substrate. Speakman teaches a method of application and removal of a protective film over an exposed surface of a substrate (see, for example, abstract, [0013-0017], Figures). Speakman further teaches wherein the application of such a removable film can be readily cut from a continuous roll of material by laser cutting, and further wherein its cut dimensions can include an overhang portion (peel off tab 154) to facilitate removal (See, for example, Fig 13b-f, [0627-0628], [0688], [1005]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated cutting the protective film with a laser resulting in an overhang from an edge of the substrate as it would facilitate removal / peelability of the protective film and as it provides a predictable means to reproducibly size such a material from a stock supply to the desired dimensions.
Speakman is silent as to the configuration of the laser with respect to the film, so although it does not explicitly teach a stationary laser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a stationary laser since the fact that a claimed device is particularly stationary / or movable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (In re Lindberg, 194 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952) and since a reference disclosure can anticipate / render obvious a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)) herein there are only two alternatives, stationary or not stationary thus either configuration is readily foreseeable and yielding of predictable results.
Parker further teaches application of a temporary protective film to prevent scratching and damage to underlying surfaces during processing / transport, and wherein the film can be deposited in solid form (See, for example, [0002] ). And Parker further teaches laminating the first substrate to a second substrate (See, for example, [0038]). But it is silent as the particulars of the lamination process including part orientation and layer structure during lamination of a singular part, so it does not explicitly teach wherein the protective film is over the at least a portion of the exposed surface of the first substrate during the laminating of the first to the second substrate, nor wherein an interlayer is formed on the surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate. Strong teaches a method of forming IGUs comprising EC devices (See, for example, abstract, [0002-6], Figures). Strong further teaches wherein lamination of EC device films on first substrates can predictably laminated onto second substrate after such EC device film deposition (see, for example, [0113- 132], Fig 4J, 6B). Strong further teaches wherein an interlayer (such as an adhesive layer) is provided on the surface of the second substrate facing the first substrate to promote bonding (see, for example, [0114] adhesive is applied to substrate 476, flexible substrate 478 or both). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed laminating the first substrate to the second substrate with the protective film over the at least a portion of the exposed surface of the first substrate and an adhesive interlayer therebetween since lamination of the two substrate following EC film formation processing is well known in the art to achieve laminated multi substrates for EC devices, since retention of the protective film during such lamination would predictably allow the protective film to achieve its intended use of protecting underlying surfaces during processing, and thus reduce damage thereto, since an adhesive interlayer would predictably improve bonding, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Parker further teaches application of a temporary protective film to prevent scratching and damage to underlying surfaces during processing / transport, and wherein the film can be deposited in solid form (See, for example, [0002] ). And Parker further teaches laminating the first substrate to a second substrate (See, for example, [0038]); but it does not explicitly teach the surface of the second surface facing away from the first substrate is also deposited with a second protective film. Baker teaches a method for lamination of two substrates through a nip (See, for example, abstract, [0090], Fig 2). Baker further teaches wherein both out surfaces undergoing the lamination process are known to be prone to damage / scratching during such lamination, and therefore both such outer surfaces can be prelaminated with a protective film to ensure protection against scratches from the lamination process. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have additionally deposited a second protective film upon the surface of the second surface facing away from the first substrate as such an outer surface is recognized in the art to similarly be prone to scratching during lamination processes, and thus, like the exposed surface of the first substrate, would similarly benefit from the improved protective properties, including scratch prevention, of a protective layer being applied thereto; additionally / alternatively application of a duplicate layer upon the opposing surface to predictably provide the same protective function is obviated as it is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claim 13: Parker further teaches removing the first protective film comprises peeling off the protective film (see, for example, [0055] [0065]). Parker further teaches wherein the protective film is removed from the electrochromic stack deposited on or over the first substrate (See, for example, [0070] wherein the protective film is taught to be applied and removed following fabrication of the EC device (which is inclusive of the EC stack), thus it would at least be indirectly removed from a component of EC stack deposited over the first substrate).
Claim 14: Nachtigal further teaches wherein the first protective film comprises polyester / PET (See, for example, [0041]). As the recitation in claim 14 only conditionally limits one (low density polyethylene) of the four species of protective film recited in claim 1; this limitation is met by the teaching of Nachtigal to one of the alternative species (polyester / PET).
Claim 21: Parker further teaches, wherein one or more bus bars are formed on at least one of the first transparent conductor layer and the second transparent electronically conductive layer (See, for example, Fig 4A).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, and Baker as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Holzer and Parker et al (US 6,413,618; hereafter Parker618).
Claims 16: Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, and Baker teaches the method above, and Parker further teaches application of a temporary protective film to prevent scratching and damage to underlying surfaces during processing /transport, and wherein the film can be deposited in solid form (See, for example, [0002] ) and Nachtigal further teaches the protective film can be applied via lamination of a solid film (See, for example, [0043]). But they do not explicitly teach depositing the protective film over at least a portion of the substrate comprises passing the substrate and the protective film through a nip roller.
Holzer teaches a method directed to lamination of a temporary protective film (such as PS or PET) onto an article to prevent damage during transport and between processing, and further teaches wherein application can be improved via incorporation of the aid of pressure with rolls ( [0001], [0012-13], [0049]). Holzer further teaches heating to temperatures above 70oC during lamination enhances adhesive strength (see, for example, [0047], [0051]). Holzer further teaches that the application of pressure greater than 10N/cm2 (~14.5 PSI) can assist lamination and is dictated by the mode and shape of the article (see, for example, [0009], [0100]). But Holzer is relatively silent as to a suitable structure for imparting such lamination. Parker618 teaches a method of laminating glass substrates with polymeric films (27) (See, for example, abstract, col 6 line 60- col 7 line 18). Parker618 further teaches wherein lamination of a polymeric film onto a glass substrate involving heat , pressure, and roller(s) can predictably be achieved via passing a protective film and the substrate through the pressurized nip of two adjacent heated rollers of a heated roller press (See, for example, col 11 line 59-col 12 line 21, Fig 9 particularly features 903 and 902) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated passing the protective film through a nip roller of a heated roller press since it would predictably aid lamination of the temporary protective film upon the glass substrate with enhanced adhesive strength resulting in desired structure, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Holzer further teaches that the application of pressure greater than 10N/cm2 (~14.5 PSI) can assist lamination and is dictated by the mode and shape of the article (see, for example, [0009], [0100]). Although such a range is not explicitly a pressure of about 50 PSI to about 300 PSI C as claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a pressure within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and since discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over P Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, and Baker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bhatnagar.
Claim 17: Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, and Baker teach the method of claim 1 above. Parker further teaches scenarios including washing and grinding and further wherein the application of the sacrificial coating occurs downstream of TCO fabrication and such washing and griding operations, even following fabrication of the EC device (see, for example, Table 1 scenarios 2-5, and (0070]). But Parker does not explicitly teach a step of polishing prior to depositing the protective film. Bhatnagar teaches a method of fabricating multilayered optical devices, further electrochromic devices (See, for example, abstract, [0013-0017]). Bhatnagar teaches wherein after the substrate having a transparent conducting layer thereon is received it should be polished and washed / cleaned prior to subsequent application of EC device layers in order to reduce defectivity (See, for example, Fig 1, [0015-0016]] [0021], [0026], [0058]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a step of polishing and washing the TCO coated substrate upon its receipt prior to subsequent processing including application of the sacrificial coating and EC device fabrication as it would predictably reduce defectivity in the subsequently formed EC device.
Claim 18: Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, Baker and Bhatnagar teach the method of claim 17, and Parker further teaches prior to washing the substrate, further comprising: cutting, grinding, and tempering the substrate (See, for example, pg 9-11 at least options 1c, 1d, 1e, 2c, 2d, 2e, 3c, 3d, and 3e; wherein steps of cutting grinding and tempering are all conducted prior to any washing (as sole intervening washing is listed as optional), including embodiments wherein the tempering occurs prior to EC device fabrication. Bhatnagar has further taught wherein the polishing is performed just before EC device fabrication and following tempering (See, for example, [0016]).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, and Baker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cooprider.
Claim 38: Parker in view of Nachtigal, Speakman, Strong, and Baker teaches the method of claim 1 above, but Speakman is silent as to suitable overhang length for its peel off tab, so it does not explicitly teach an edge overhang of from 1 to 5 cm. Cooprider teaches a method directed to the application of a temporary film (See, for example, abstract). Cooprider further teaches wherein graspable tabs similarly designed to enhance removal of the film possess tab widths of 0.5 to 2 cm, and wherein provide an economy wherein too narrow and results in difficulty in grabbing, and too wide results in the possibility of curling, crumpling or damage (See, for example, pg 7 line 28 – pg 8 line 11) . Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an edge overhang of from 0.5 to 2 cm since such an amount would predictably facilitate grasping for removal while avoiding damage. Although such a dimension is not explicitly 1-5 cm as claimed Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an overhang within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly added limitations are unconvincing in view of newly-cited Baker as discussed in the rejections above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights