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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 15-16 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the fifth dielectric layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (it appears this should depend on claim 8)
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the fifth dielectric layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. (it appears this should depend on claim 8 or 15 and will be examined as such)
Claim 20 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation greater than, and the claim also recites 0 to 10 nm which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For examination purposes the claimed range is interpreted as 0 to 10 nm.
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, 3-4, 7-8 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng CN 109734331 (translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Zeng teaches a coated article comprising: a substrate (figs 1 glass sheet 10); a first dielectric layer (first dielectric layer 21) over at least a portion of the substrate, the first dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2 (see page -2 first dielectric layer) a second dielectric layer (second dielectric layer 22) over at least a portion of the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer comprises SiAlO (page 2 – second dielectric layer); a third dielectric layer (third dielectric layer 23) over at least a portion of the second dielectric layer, the third dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2(page 2 – third dielectric layer) a fourth dielectric layer (fourth dielectric layer 24) over at least a portion of the third dielectric layer, the fourth dielectric layer comprises SiAlO (page 2 fourth dielectric layer); and a protective layer (seventh dielectric layer 27) over at least a portion of the fourth dielectric layer, the protective layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2 (see page 2 seventh dielectric layer).
Regarding claim 3, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer has a thickness in the range of 80 nm to 161 nm (third dielectric layer is 125- 130 nm). The third dielectric layer of Zeng can be alternatively interpreted to be the first. Fourth of Zeng can be interpreted as the second. Fifth of Zeng can be interpreted as the third and Sixth of Zeng can be interpreted as the fourth. Seventh dielectric would still be the protective film.
Regarding claim 4, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the second dielectric layer has a thickness in the range of 26 nm to 138 nm (see page 2 second dielectric layer is 25 to 35 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Zeng teaches 7. The coated article of claim 1, wherein the protective layer has a thickness in the range of 3 nm to 61 nm (see page 2 seventh dielectric layer – 50nm to 70 nm).
Regarding claim 8, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the coating stack further comprises a fifth dielectric layer (fifth dielectric layer 25), the fifth dielectric layer having a thickness in the range of 30 nm to 60 nm (see page 2- fifth dielectric layer 50 to 60 nm).
Regarding claim 15, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the fifth dielectric layer (fifth dielectric layer 25) is disposed over at least a portion of the fourth dielectric layer (fourth dielectric layer 24).
Regarding claim 16, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 15, wherein the fifth dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2 (see page 2 fifth dielectric layer)
Regarding claim 17, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 1 further comprising a second protective layer (second protective layer 29) over at least a portion of the protective layer (seventh dielectric layer 27).
Regarding claim 18, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 17, wherein the second protective layer comprises zirconium oxide. In this instance fifth dielectric layer 25 of Zeng can be interpreted as the first protective layer comprising TiO2 (see page 2 fifth dielectric layer) and seventh dielectric layer 27 can be interpreted as the second protective film comprising zirconium oxide (see page 2 seventh dielectric layer)
Regarding claim 19, Zeng teaches the coated article of claim 17, wherein the second protective layer has a thickness range of greater than 0 nm to 10 nm (see page 3 second protective layer is 4 to 6 nm).
Claims 1,3-6, 9-10 and 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 coated article comprising: a substrate (figs 5b glass substrate 1); a first dielectric layer (niobium oxide layer 2 [0123]) over at least a portion of the substrate, the first dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2 ([0164]) a second dielectric layer (silicon oxide layer 3 [0124]) over at least a portion of the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer comprises SiAlO ([0154]); a third dielectric layer (niobium oxide layer 4 [0125]) over at least a portion of the second dielectric layer, the third dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2 ([0164]) a fourth dielectric layer (silicon oxide layer 5 [0126]) over at least a portion of the third dielectric layer, the fourth dielectric layer comprises SiAlO ([0154])and a protective layer (niobium oxide layer 6) over at least a portion of the fourth dielectric layer, the protective layer comprises ZnSnO or TiO2 ([0164]).
Regarding claim 3, Vikor teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer has a thickness in the range of 80 nm to 161 nm [0140]
Regarding claim 4, Vikor teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the second dielectric layer has a thickness in the range of 26 nm to 138 nm [0140].
Regarding claim 5, Vikor teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the third dielectric layer has a thickness in the range of 37 nm to 112 nm (claim 14).
Regarding claim 6, Vikor teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the fourth dielectric layer has a thickness in the range of 67 nm to 101 nm (see claim 15).
Regarding claim 9, Vikor teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the second dielectric layer [0124] has a thickness range that is less than half of the thickness of the fourth dielectric layer [0126].
Regarding claim 10, Vikor teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the fourth dielectric layer has a thickness range that is thicker [0126] than the thickness of the second dielectric layer [0124].
Regarding claim 20, Vikor teaches a method of making a coated article comprising: providing a substrate (fig. 5b glass substrate 1); applying a first dielectric layer (high index dielectric layer 2) having a thickness in the range of 80 nm to 161 nm[0021] over at least a portion of the substrate, wherein the first dielectric layer comprises a first high refractive index material (TiOx see fig 5b); applying a second dielectric layer (dielectric layer 3)having a thickness in the range of 26 nm to 138 nm [0021] over at least a portion of the first dielectric layer, wherein the second dielectric layer comprises a first low refractive index material (SiOx); applying a third dielectric layer (high index dielectric layer 4) having a thickness in the range of 37 nm to 112 nm (claim 14) over at least a portion of the second dielectric layer, wherein the third dielectric layer comprises a second high refractive index material (TiOx); applying a fourth dielectric layer (transparent dielectric layer 5) having a thickness in the range of 67 nm to 101 nm [0149] over at least a portion of the third dielectric layer, wherein the fourth dielectric layer comprises a second low refractive index material (SiOx); and applying a protective layer (high index dielectric layer 6) having a thickness in the range of 3 nm to 61 nm over (claim 16) at least a portion of the fourth dielectric layer.
Claims 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ganjoo US 2019/0043640.
Regarding claim 1, Ganjoo teaches a coated article comprising: a substrate (figs 1d substrate 10); a first dielectric layer (first underlayer film 20) over at least a portion of the substrate, the first dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO (zinc stannate [0062]) or TiO2 a second dielectric layer (second underlayer 22) over at least a portion of the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer comprises SiAlO (silica and alumina [0066]); a third dielectric layer (first protective film 60]) over at least a portion of the second dielectric layer, the third dielectric layer comprises ZnSnO (zinc stannate [0107]) or TiO2 ([0164]) a fourth dielectric layer (second protective film 62) over at least a portion of the third dielectric layer, the fourth dielectric layer comprises SiAlO (Silica [0269] alumina [0194])and a protective layer (third protective film 62) over at least a portion of the fourth dielectric layer, the protective layer comprises ZnSnO (zinc stannate [0110]or TiO2.
Regarding claim 2, Ganjoo teaches the coated article of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer and [0062] the third dielectric layer comprise ZnSnO [0107].
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) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vikor US 2014/0227500 in view of Weller US 2017/0177935.
Regarding claims 11-14, Vikor teaches he coated article of claim 1. Vikor does not teach wherein the coated article has a light reflectance of at least 50% in the visible light spectrum ; the coated article has a light reflectance range of 50% to 70%; the coated article has a color reflectance of L* value in the range of 70 to 90; wherein the coated article has a color transmittance of L* value in the range of 60 to 70.
Weller teaches a coated article wherein the coated article has a light reflectance of at least 50% in the visible light spectrum [0037] ; the coated article has a light reflectance range of 50% to 70% [0037]; the coated article has a color reflectance of L* value in the range of 70 to 90 (table 3); wherein the coated article has a color transmittance of L* value in the range of 60 to 70 (Table 3) to achieve industry standard reflectance [0033] and offer neutral color appearance [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Vikor in view of Weller to achieve industry standard reflectance and neutral color appearance.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ganjoo US 2019/0043640 in view of Weller US 2017/0177935.
Regarding claims 11-14, Ganjoo teaches he coated article of claim 1. Ganjoo does not teach wherein the coated article has a light reflectance of at least 50% in the visible light spectrum ; the coated article has a light reflectance range of 50% to 70%; the coated article has a color reflectance of L* value in the range of 70 to 90; wherein the coated article has a color transmittance of L* value in the range of 60 to 70.
Weller teaches a coated article wherein the coated article has a light reflectance of at least 50% in the visible light spectrum [0037] ; the coated article has a light reflectance range of 50% to 70% [0037]; the coated article has a color reflectance of L* value in the range of 70 to 90 (table 3); wherein the coated article has a color transmittance of L* value in the range of 60 to 70 (Table 3) to achieve industry standard reflectance [0033] and offer neutral color appearance [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ganjoo in view of Weller to achieve industry standard reflectance and neutral color appearance.
Claim(s) 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng CN 109734331 (translation provided) in view of Weller US 2017/0177935.
Regarding claims 11-14, Zeng teaches he coated article of claim 1. Zeng does not teach wherein the coated article has a light reflectance of at least 50% in the visible light spectrum ; the coated article has a light reflectance range of 50% to 70%; the coated article has a color reflectance of L* value in the range of 70 to 90; wherein the coated article has a color transmittance of L* value in the range of 60 to 70.
Weller teaches a coated article wherein the coated article has a light reflectance of at least 50% in the visible light spectrum [0037] ; the coated article has a light reflectance range of 50% to 70% [0037]; the coated article has a color reflectance of L* value in the range of 70 to 90 (table 3); wherein the coated article has a color transmittance of L* value in the range of 60 to 70 (Table 3) to achieve industry standard reflectance [0033] and offer neutral color appearance [0033]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zeng in view of Weller to achieve industry standard reflectance and neutral color appearance.
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