DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 4/10/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-11 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lairson et al. (US20100086775).
Regarding claim 1, Lairson teaches a hybrid reflective stack assembly (Lairson, figs.1-23, abstract, a multilayer reflective coating and devices employing such coatings), comprising
a first layer (Lairson, fig.1D, layer 110) comprising an aluminum substrate (paragraph [0045], a layer of aluminum 110),
a barrier layer (fig.1D, the barrier layer 130) arranged on an upper surface of the first layer (fig.1D, the layer 110) and
a second layer (fig.1D, the layer 120) arranged on an upper surface of the barrier layer (the layer 130) and comprising silver (paragraph [0045] the silver layer 120),
wherein the second layer comprising silver has thickness in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm (Lairson teaches the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; see in paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; also, since in fig.14, Ag is 20 nm and fig13, Ag has thickness 30nm; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize silver has thickness to fit into the claimed in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm, in order to provide a high efficiency, low-cost reflective coating for the reflective surfaces employed therein (see e.g. paragraphs [0008]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).).
Regarding claim 5, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the second layer comprising silver has thickness of about 27 nm (Lairson, fig13, Ag has thickness 30nm, so is about 27nm; paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm).
Regarding claim 6, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 2 and further teaches wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 30 nm (fig.13, paragraph [0063], 2 nm dielectric barrier layer).
Regarding claim 7, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 6 and further teaches wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 2 nm (fig.13, paragraph [0063], 2 nm dielectric barrier layer).
Regarding claim 8, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the first layer comprising the aluminum substrate has a thickness of at least 100 nm (fig.13, aluminum substrate has a thickness is 120nm; paragraph [0045], The thickness of the aluminum layer 110 may be between 5 nm and 500 nm).
Regarding claim 9, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and further teaches wherein the barrier layer is comprised of one of Si, SiO2, a nickel-chromium alloy NiCrx, NiCr nitride, Al2O3, or TiO2 (Lairson, paragraph [0019], a barrier layer 130 formed from one or more materials selected, aluminum silicon oxynitride, and titanium dioxide).
Regarding claim 10, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 9 and further teaches wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 4 nm (fig.13, barrier layer has a thickness 2nm; paragraph [0045] the barrier layer 130 may have a thickness of less than 30 nm).
Regarding claim 11, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 9, but is silent on wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 4 nm to 10 nm (fig.13, the barrier layer has a thickness 2nm).
However, Lairson teaches in paragraph [0045] the barrier layer 130 may have a thickness of less than 30 nm---thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize barrier layer has thickness to fit into the claimed in a range of 4 nm to 10 nm, in order to provide a high efficiency, low-cost reflective coating for the reflective surfaces employed therein (see e.g. paragraphs [0008]), and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).).
Regarding claim 20, Lairson teaches a method (Lairson, fig.1D, paragraph [0013], an additional embodiment may provide a method of producing a multilayer reflective), comprising
providing a first layer (Lairson, fig.1D, layer 110) comprising an aluminum substrate (paragraph [0045], a layer of aluminum 110),
arranging a barrier layer (fig.1D, the barrier layer 130) arranged on an upper surface of the first layer (fig.1D, the layer 110), and
arranging a second layer (fig.1D, the layer 120) arranged on an upper surface of the barrier layer (the layer 130) and comprising silver (paragraph [0045] the silver layer 120),
wherein the second layer comprising silver has thickness in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm (Lairson teaches the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; see in paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; also, since in fig.14, Ag is 20 nm and fig13, Ag has thickness 30nm; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize silver has thickness to fit into the claimed in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm, in order to provide a high efficiency, low-cost reflective coating for the reflective surfaces employed therein (see e.g. paragraphs [0008]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lairson et al. (US20100086775), and further in view of Cai et al. (US20150138782).
Regarding claim 12, Lairson discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein further comprising
a first additional layer comprising SiO2 or a silicon/aluminum alloy on an upper surface of the second layer comprising silver.
However, Cai teaches the analogous multi-layer reflective coating (Cai, abstract, Provided is a multi-layer reflective coating for application to a lighting housing assembly, including a polymer substrate adjacent a polymer base coat layer applied to the lighting housing), and further teaches wherein a first additional layer comprising SiO2 or a silicon/aluminum alloy (Cai, fig.1, layer 160, paragraph [0034] this spectrum tunable layer 160 can be comprised of organic or inorganic-organic hybrid coating materials. These organic or inorganic-organic hybrid materials can comprise silicon dioxide, silica monoxide, silica nitride, metal oxide and metal nitrides) on an upper surface of the second layer (Cai, fig.1, layer 150) comprising silver (paragraph [0015] silver reflective layer 150).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Lairson to have the specific layer as taught by Cai for the purpose to have more highly reflective lighting assembly coating that is more compatible with LED arrays (Cai, paragraph [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, combination Lairson-Cai discloses the invention as described in Claim 12 and Cai further teaches wherein further comprising a second additional layer (Cai, fig.1,layer 120+110; paragraph [0014] polymer substrate layer 110, a polymer basecoat layer 120,) comprising SiO2 or a silicon/aluminum alloy (Cai, paragraph [0016] The polymer substrate layer 110 is a substrate material that can be applied to plastic, glass or metal) on a bottom surface of the first layer (Cai, fig.1, layer 130) comprising the aluminum substrate (Cai, paragraph [0141] aluminum ,Al, adhesive layer 130). The motivation to combine Lairson and Cai as provided in claim 12 is incorporated herein.
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lairson et al. (US20100086775), and further in view of Ballou et al. (US20180364402).
Regarding claim 14, Lairson teaches a hybrid reflective stack assembly (Lairson, figs.1-23, abstract, a multilayer reflective coating and devices employing such coatings), comprising
an aluminum substrate (fig.1D, paragraph [0045], a layer of aluminum 110),
a barrier layer (fig.1D, the barrier layer 130) arranged on an upper surface of the aluminum substrate (fig.1D, the layer 110), and
a silver layer (paragraph [0045] the silver layer 120) arranged on an upper surface of the barrier layer (the layer 130),
wherein the silver layer has thickness in a range of 15 nm to 35 nm (Lairson,fig.13, the silver layer has thickness 30nm; paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm),
wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 30 nm (fig.13, the barrier layer has a thickness 2 nm; paragraph [0063], 2 nm dielectric barrier layer; paragraph [0045] the barrier layer 130 may have a thickness of less than 30 nm), and
wherein the aluminum substrate has a thickness of at least 100 nm (fig.13, the aluminum substrate has a thickness 120nm; paragraph [0045], The thickness of the aluminum layer 110 may be between 5 nm and 500 nm).
Lairson does not explicitly disclose wherein the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, a nickel-chromium alloy NiCrx, or NiCr nitride.
However, Ballou teaches the analogous hybrid reflective stack assembly (see Ballou, table 1, showing hybrid reflective stack), and further teaches wherein the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, a nickel-chromium alloy NiCrx, or NiCr nitride (see Ballou, table 1, the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, NiCrN, or NiCr).
Further, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07; thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lairson to have the specific material as taught by Ballou for the purpose to have a broad band silver coated optic that is both durable in hot, humid, and salty environments while also providing high reflectance in the NUV and LWIR bands (Ballou, paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, combination Lairson-Ballou discloses the invention as described in Claim 14, Lairson further teaches wherein the second layer comprising silver has thickness in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm (Lairson teaches the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; see in paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; also, since in fig.14, Ag is 20 nm and fig13, Ag has thickness 30nm; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize silver has thickness to fit into the claimed in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm, in order to provide a high efficiency, low-cost reflective coating for the reflective surfaces employed therein (see e.g. paragraphs [0008]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).).
Regarding claim 16, combination Lairson-Ballou discloses the invention as described in Claim 14 and further teaches wherein the silver layer has thickness of about 27 nm (Lairson, fig13, Ag has thickness 30nm, so is about 27nm; paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm).
Regarding claim 18, combination Lairson-Ballou discloses the invention as described in Claim 17 and further teaches wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 4 nm (fig.13, barrier layer has a thickness 2 nm).
Regarding claim 19, combination Lairson-Ballou discloses the invention as described in Claim 18 and further teaches wherein the barrier layer has a thickness in a range of 1 nm to 2 nm (fig.13, paragraph [0063], 2 nm dielectric barrier layer).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered, see Remarks Page. 5-13 with respect to the 35 U.S.C.& 103 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
Lairson does not explicitly disclose wherein the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, a nickel-chromium alloy NiCrx, or NiCr nitride.
In response to applicant's argument(s) of 1
See claim 14, described, Lairson does not explicitly disclose wherein the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, a nickel-chromium alloy NiCrx, or NiCr nitride.
However, Ballou teaches the analogous hybrid reflective stack assembly (see Ballou, table 1, showing hybrid reflective stack), and further teaches wherein the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, a nickel-chromium alloy NiCrx, or NiCr nitride (see Ballou, table 1, the barrier layer is comprised of one of SiO2, NiCrN, or NiCr).
Further, it has been held that where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is disclosed in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.07; thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lairson to have the specific material as taught by Ballou for the purpose to have a broad band silver coated optic that is both durable in hot, humid, and salty environments while also providing high reflectance in the NUV and LWIR bands (Ballou, paragraph [0003]).
In the remarks, applicant argues that:
Accordingly, in addition to Lairson providing no guidance, because such optimization would not be considered to involve routine skill in the art nor be considered to be routine optimization in the art, the ranges of Lairson would be considered "so broad... as to not invite optimization by one of skill in the art" for at least this additional reason. In summary, for at least all of the reasons discussed above, Lairson fails to teach the claimed range of 26 nm to 28 nm, and arriving at the claimed range of 26 nm to 28 nm would not be considered routine optimization.
In response to applicant's argument(s) of 2
In claims 1 and 20, recite the broad recitation “comprising, further, wherein the second layer comprising silver has thickness in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm (Lairson teaches the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; see in paragraph [0045], thickness of the silver layer 120 may be between 5 nm and 100 nm; also, since in fig.14, Ag is 20 nm and fig13, Ag has thickness 30nm; thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize silver has thickness to fit into the claimed in a range of 26 nm to 28 nm, in order to provide a high efficiency, low-cost reflective coating for the reflective surfaces employed therein (see e.g. paragraphs [0008]), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).).
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284.The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights