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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vikor US 2014/0227500.
Regarding claim 1, Vikor teaches a unidirectional perspective film, comprising a first niobium oxide layer(fig. 5b NbOx layer 6) , a first silicon oxide layer (SiOx layer 5), an absorption layer (NiCr layer 8), a second niobium oxide layer (NbOx layer 4), and a second silicon oxide layer (SiOx layer 3) disposed sequentially, wherein the absorption layer has a thickness ranging from about 8 nm to about 20 nm [0134].
Regarding claim 2, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film according to claim 1, wherein the absorption layer comprises one or more of silicon, indium, niobium, titanium, and chromium (see fig. 5b Chromium).
Regarding claim 3, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film according to claim 1, wherein: each of the first niobium oxide layer and the second niobium oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 120 nm (65nm [0136] and 52 nm [0133] ); and each of the first silicon oxide layer and the second silicon oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 160 nm (49nm [0135] and 95nm [0132]).
Regarding claim 7, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film according to claim 1, wherein the unidirectional perspective film has a visible light transmission rate ranging from about 10% to about 25% (18-20% see [0137]).
Regarding claim 8, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film according to claim 1, wherein a first surface of the unidirectional perspective film has a first visible light reflection rate a second surface of the unidirectional perspective film has a second visible light reflection rate, an absolute value of a difference between the first visible light reflection rate and the second visible light reflection rate is greater than or equal to 15% (at least 30% see [0140]).
Regarding claim 9, Vikor teaches a single-sided mirror, comprising a substrate (fig. 5b glass substrate 1) and an unidirectional perspective film disposed on a surface of the substrate, wherein: the unidirectional perspective film comprises a first niobium oxide layer (NbOx layer 6), a first silicon oxide layer (SiOx layer 5), an absorption layer (NiCr layer 8), a second niobium oxide layer (NbOx layer 4), and a second silicon oxide layer (NbOx layer 3) disposed sequentially, wherein the absorption layer has a thickness ranging from about 8 nm to about 20 nm [0134].
Regarding claims 10, Vikor teaches the single-sided mirror according to claim 9, but does not explicitly teach he surface of the substrate is disposed closer to the first niobium oxide layer than to the first silicon oxide layer ([0003] and [0019] Vikor discloses dielectric mirror 100 can be a first or second surface mirror which means the glass substrate can be positioned next to first niobium oxide layer 6).
Regarding claim 11 The single-sided mirror according to claim 9, wherein the absorption layer comprises one or more of silicon, indium, niobium, titanium, and chromium (see fig. 5b Chromium).
Regarding claim 12, The single-sided mirror according to claim 9, wherein: each of the first niobium oxide layer and the second niobium oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 120 nm (65nm [0136] and 52 nm [0133] ); and each of the first silicon oxide layer and the second silicon oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 10 nm to about 160 nm (49nm [0135] and 95nm [0132]).
Regarding claim 16, Vikor teaches the single-sided mirror according to claim 9, wherein the unidirectional perspective film has a visible light transmission rate ranging from about 10% to about 25% (18-20% see [0137]).
Regarding claim 17, Vikor teaches the single-sided mirror according to claim 9, wherein a first surface of the unidirectional perspective film has a first visible light reflection rate a second surface of the unidirectional perspective film has a second visible light reflection rate, an absolute value of a difference between the first visible light reflection rate and the second visible light reflection rate is greater than or equal to 15% (at least 30% see [0140]).
Regarding claim 18, Vikor teaches an electronic device, comprising a unidirectional perspective film, wherein: the unidirectional perspective film comprises a first niobium oxide layer (fig. 5b NbOx layer 6), a first silicon oxide layer (SiOx layer 5), an absorption layer (NiCr layer 8), a second niobium oxide layer (NbOx layer 4), and a second silicon oxide layer (SiOx layer 4) disposed sequentially, the absorption layer has a thickness ranging from about 8 nm to about 20 nm [0134].
Regarding claim 19, Vikor teaches an electronic device (digital signage [0019]), comprising a single-sided mirror, wherein: the single-sided mirror comprises a substrate (glass substrate 1) and the unidirectional perspective film according to claim 1 disposed on a surface of the substrate.
Regarding claim 20, Vikor teaches the electronic device according to claim 19, wherein the surface of the substrate is disposed closer to the first niobium oxide layer than to the first silicon oxide layer ([0003] and [0019] Vikor discloses dielectric mirror 100 can be a first or second surface mirror which means the glass substrate can be positioned next to first niobium oxide layer 6).
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.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikor US 2014/0227500.
fifth transparent dielectric high refractive index layer (niobium oxide – claim 1) (thickness 30-80nm – claim 16)
First niobium oxide layer
fourth transparent dielectric low refractive index layer (silicon oxide – claim 1) (thickness 40-120nm -see claim 15)
First silicon oxide layer
Symmetry adjusting layer (claim 5-6), NiCr (claim 6)
a third transparent dielectric high refractive index layer comprising niobium oxide (claim 1) (30-80nm see claim 14)
Second niobium oxide layer
second transparent dielectric low refractive index layer comprising silicon oxide (30-140nm see claim 1) (silicon oxide see claim 1)
Second silicon oxide layer
First transparent dielectric high refractive index layer (70-140nm – see claim 1)(niobium oxide -see claim 1)
Glass – see claim 1
I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS
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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).
Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See also Warner-Jenkinson Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997) (under the doctrine of equivalents, a purification process using a pH of 5.0 could infringe a patented purification process requiring a pH of 6.0-9.0); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205-206 (CCPA 1946) (prior art showed an angle in a groove of up to 90° and an applicant claimed an angle of no less than 120°); In re Becket, 88 F.2d 684 (CCPA 1937) ("Where the component elements of alloys are the same, and where they approach so closely the same range of quantities as is here the case, it seems that there ought to be some noticeable difference in the qualities of the respective alloys."); In re Dreyfus, 73 F.2d 931, 934, 24 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1934)(the prior art, which taught about 0.7:1 of alkali to water, renders unpatentable a claim that increased the proportion to at least 1:1 because there was no showing that the claimed proportions were critical); In re Lilienfeld, 67 F.2d 920, 924, 20 USPQ 53, 57 (CCPA 1933)(the prior art teaching an alkali cellulose containing minimal amounts of water, found by the Examiner to be in the 5-8% range, the claims sought to be patented were to an alkali cellulose with varying higher ranges of water (e.g., "not substantially less than 13%," "not substantially below 17%," and "between about 13[%] and 20%"); K-Swiss Inc. v. Glide N Lock GmbH, 567 Fed. App'x 906 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(reversing the Board's decision, in an appeal of an inter partes reexamination proceeding, that certain claims were not prima facie obvious due to non-overlapping ranges); In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs./ft3 and 25 lbs./ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.).
Regarding claim 4 and 13, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film/single sided mirror according to claim 1/9, wherein: the first niobium oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 30 nm to about 60 nm (first niobium oxide layer – see above); the first silicon oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 90 nm to about 110 nm (first silicon oxide layer – see above); second niobium oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 60 nm to about 110 nm (second niobium oxide layer see above) and the second silicon oxide layer has a thickness ranging from about 50 nm to about 90 nm (second silicon oxide layer see above) (see MPEP 2144.05 citation above).
Regarding claim 5 and 14, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film/ single sided mirror according to claim 1/9, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the first niobium oxide layer to a thickness of the first silicon oxide layer is about 1:(1.5 to 3.5) (ex 80 nm to 120 nm also see MPEP 2144.05 citation above).
Regarding claim 6 and 15, Vikor teaches the unidirectional perspective film/single sided mirror according to claim 1/9, wherein a ratio of a thickness of the second niobium oxide layer to a thickness of the second silicon oxide layer is about 1:(0.5 to 1.5) (ex 80nm to 140nm also see MPEP 2144.05 citation above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871