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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "With respect to claims 3 and 10… Therefore, claims 3 and 10 cover two possible two-layer thin-film interference filters, one with two CrSiCN layers (claim 3) and one with one CrSiCN layer and a DLC layer (claim 10). These claims do not broaden or contradict claim 2, as they further define the two-layer thin-film interference filter recited in claim 2," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that “claims to different species are mutually exclusive if one claim recites limitations disclosed for a first species but not a second, while a second claim recites limitations disclosed only for the second species and not the first.” See MPEP § 806.04. Applicant admits to reciting mutually exclusive species that “cover two possible two-layer thin-film interference filters,” i.e., two different structures of the two-layer thin-film interference filter comprising layers that cannot exist at the same time. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, for the recitation of mutually exclusive layer configurations dependent on the same “two-layer” thin-film interference filter renders the scope ambiguous and unclear. Since Claims 3 and 10 can be reasonably interpreted as either exceeding the expressly recited two-layer limitation or requiring substitution of layers that are not claimed, the metes and bounds of Claims 3-13 are unclear. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain whether the claimed subject matter is limited to two layers or encompasses three-layer embodiments. “Further, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims must be consistent with the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP §§ 2111.01 and 2173.02. Examiner reminds the applicant that “a dependent claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) if it omits an element from the claim upon which it depends or it fails to add a limitation to the claim upon which it depends.” In other words, replacing or alternatively substituting a limitation is not adding a limitation. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01. Also, “in the instance where the list of potential alternatives can vary and ambiguity arises, then it is proper to make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).” See MPEP § 2173.05. Please see § 112(d), § 112(b), and § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "It was further suggested that claims 6 and 11 contradict one another and that claims 7 and 12 contradict one another. However, claims 6 and 11 depend from claim 2 separately and cover different arrangements….In view of the foregoing, Applicant respectfully requests that the § 112(d) rejections be withdrawn," the Examiner traverses. Please see previous response to argument above and § 112(d), § 112(b), and § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the Office Action, claim 1 was rejected as being anticipated by Feng…There is no suggestion in Zhang that a coating with a "two-layer thin-film interference filter" can have the L*, a*, and b* values recited in amended claim 1. Therefore, even if Feng were modified based on Zhang's teachings to have the L*, a*, and b* coatings listed in Zhang's Table 6, the resulting combination would not have both a "two-layer thin-film interference filter" and the L*, a*, and b* values recited in claim 1," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on “Zhang's coating includes bonding layer 40, color layer 20, and interference layer 30 on substrate 50 (see FIG. 2). In particular, Zhang's interference layer 30 is a single layer that includes aluminum atoms, titanium atoms, and nitrogen atoms (paragraph 26),” for the Examiner relies on Feng in view of Zhang teaching a coated member, electronic device, and method for manufacturing the coated member (100; [0021]), wherein the values of the color of a short side of the coated member (100; [0021]) comprises an L* value of 63.43, a* value of 6.71, and b* value of -4.65 (table 6). Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Applicant’s assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP § 2145, 716.01(c). There is nothing in Feng in view of Zhang that teaches away from implementing such color adjustments in a coating system that includes a thin-film interference filter, nor has applicant identified anything that would prevent achieving the claimed color values in a two-layer thin film interference filter. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify a color-adjustable PVD film to include the technical feature of adjusting the values of the color of a short side of a coated member, for the purpose of increasing the thickness of an interference layer and having the coordinate L* of a coating member be larger and brighter, as taught by Zhang ([0070]; table 6). Examiner reminds the applicant that “if a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”). See MPEP § 2145.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the Office Action, claim 15 was rejected as being anticipated by Feng…One of ordinary skill would not have modified Feng's PVD film, which coats an electronic device surface, to include an opaque layer from Argoitia's pigment flake that is used in paint/ink," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's argument that Argoitia is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, applicant’s assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, for Argoitia is in the field of the inventor(s)’ endeavor by disclosing controlling optical properties (e.g., reflectivity, color, appearance, etc.) through multilayer thin film structures. A central, opaque, chromium layer for reducing reflectivity and enabling controlled optical effects is directly relevant to coatings used in electronic devices, which also relies on thin film stacks to achieve desired visual properties. Examiner submits that the rejection(s) does not propose using “paint/ink,’ but rather teaches an opaque layer within a multilayer structure as required by the as-filed claims. Chromium is a well-known material used in PVD coatings and thin film stacks and the applicant has failed to identify any technical reasoning that would preclude its use as an opaque layer in the claimed coating. Argoitia is not limited to pigment flakes, for adapting known materials and layer structures for a recognized optical property in similar multilayer coating environments is within ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify a coating to include the technical feature of a central opaque layer, for the purpose of selecting a low reflectivity layer (e.g., chromium) having a large choice of thickness and dielectric materials that can also be utilized to make dark, achromatic diffractive pigment flakes, as taught by Argoitia ([0070]). See MPEP § 2144.07. Please see § 103 rejection(s) below in the present Office action for further details and guidance.
In response to the applicant's argument that "In the Office Action, claim 18 was rejected as being anticipated by Feng…no reference has been cited to show this feature, and only Applicant's specification teaches a coating with a DLC layer, as recited in claim 18," the Examiner traverses. Applicant's assertion is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and improperly demands an express disclosure of “diamond-like carbon,” whereas the rejection(s) relies on Feng’s disclosure of a carbon-containing interference layer with optical properties that are tuned via carbon/nitrogen content. It is well within ordinary skill in the art to recognize that such carbon-based thin films include and/or suggest DLC or DLC-like materials that are known equivalents used in PVD coating stacks for achieving similar optical effects. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” See MPEP § 2112. The mapped carbon-containing interference layer for a DLC achieves the same recognized function of optical modulation and applicant has failed to identify any structural and/or functional distinction that would preclude the use of a chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer (wherein modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer; see Claim 18 rejection below in present Office action) in place of the DLC recitation. Examiner reminds that applicant that the elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP § 2131.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because "first layer 48 and…second layer 50" and "layer 70…layered onto layer 48" have both been used to designate being comprised of thin-film interference filter 38 of coating 36.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 1 recites a two-layer thin-film interference filter wherein the two-layer thin-film interference filter comprises a CrSiCN layer. Claim 2 recites the CrSiCN layer being a lowermost layer of the two-layer thin-film interference filter and Claim 3, dependent on Claim 2, further recites the two-layer thin-film interference filter further comprising an additional CrSiCN layer on the CrSiCN layer. However, Claim 10, dependent on Claim 2, also further recites the two-layer thin-film interference filter further comprising a diamond-like carbon (DLC) layer on the CrSiCN layer. The dependent Claims 3 and 10 are inconsistent with the “two-layer thin-film interference filter” originally recited in Claim 1, for the layers of the two-layer thin-film interference filter exceed two. In other words, Claim 3 adds an additional CrSiCN layer on top of the lowermost CrSiCN layer while Claim 10 adds a diamond-like carbon layer on the same lowermost CrSiCN layer, resulting in at least three (3) different layers of a two-layer filter. Thus, the dependent Claims 3 and 10 broaden and contradict Claim 2 rather than further limiting it.
Furthermore, Claim 6 recites the additional CrSiCN layer being thicker than the CrSiCN layer while Claim 11 recites the CrSiCN layer being thicker than the DLC layer. Claim 7 further recites the additional CrSiCN layer being more than 60 nm thick and the CrSiCN layer being less than 50 nm thick, which contradicts Claim 12’s recitation of the CrSiCN layer being more than 200 nm thick and the DLC layer being less than 100 nm thick. Examiner notes that the originally recited CrSiCN layer of Claim 2 cannot be less than 50 nm thick while also being more than 200 nm thick.
Since the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained, Claims 3-13 are also 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.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to Claims 3, 6-7, and 10-12, the recitation of "additional CrSiCN layer on the CrSiCN layer" in Claim 3, "additional CrSiCN layer is thicker than the CrSiCN layer" in Claim 6, "additional CrSiCN layer is more than 60 nm thick and the CrSiCN layer is less than 50 nm thick" in Claim 7, "diamond-like carbon (DLC) layer on the CrSiCN layer" in Claim 10, "the CrSiCN layer is thicker than the DLC layer" in Claim 11, and "the CrSiCN layer is more than 200 nm thick and the DLC layer is less than 100 nm thick" in Claim 12 seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how these conflicting phrases should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
See Claim Rejection for § 112(d) above for further detail.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality of an optical system.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feng et al. CN 216337918 U (see machine translation; herein after "Feng").
With respect to Claim 18, Feng discloses an electronic device (electronic products comprising color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 1-2; fig. 1; preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02) comprising:
a conductive structure (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3); and
a coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) on the conductive structure (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3) and having a color (color-adjustable; pg. 3), the coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) comprising:
adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3), and
a thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) on the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; fig. 1), wherein the thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) has a first layer that includes diamond-like carbon (DLC) (chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer, modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer 500, inclusive of DLC; pg. 3) and has a second layer that includes CrSiCN (color layer 400 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3).
With respect to Claim 19, Feng discloses the electronic device (electronic products comprising color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 1-2; fig. 1) of claim 18, wherein the second layer (color layer 400; pg. 3) is interposed between the first layer (of interference layer 500; pg. 3) and the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; fig. 1).
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 1-3, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. CN 216337918 U (see machine translation; herein after "Feng") in view of Zhang et al. US 20210395879 A1 (herein after "Zhang").
With respect to Claim 1, Feng discloses an apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) comprising:
a conductive substrate (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3); and
a coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) on the conductive substrate (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3) and having a color (color-adjustable; pg. 3), the coating (PVD film is deposited; pg. 3) comprising:
adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3), and
a two-layer thin-film interference filter (compound interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) on the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; fig. 1), wherein the two-layer thin-film interference filter (compound interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) comprises a CrSiCN layer (chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer, modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer 500; color layer 400 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3).
Feng does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein, at a location of maximum thickness and a viewing angle of zero degrees relative to a normal axis of the coating, the coating has an L* value greater than 30, an a* value between -10 and 10, and a b* value between -20 and 0.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches a coated member, electronic device, and method for manufacturing the coated member (100; [0021]), wherein the values of the color of a short side of the coated member (100; [0021]) comprises an L* value of 63.43, a* value of 6.71, and b* value of -4.65 (table 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film to include the technical feature of adjusting the values of the color of a short side of a coated member, for the purpose of increasing the thickness of an interference layer and having the coordinate L* of a coating member be larger and brighter, as taught by Zhang ([0070]; table 6).
With respect to Claim 2, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the CrSiCN layer (e.g., color layer 400 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3) is a lowermost layer (fig. 1) of the two-layer thin-film interference filter (compound interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3; Feng).
With respect to Claim 3, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 2, wherein the two-layer thin-film interference filter (compound interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) comprises an additional CrSiCN layer (e.g., chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer, modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer 500; pg. 3) on the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3; Feng).
With respect to Claim 10, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 2, wherein the two-layer thin-film interference filter (compound interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) comprises a diamond-like carbon (DLC) layer (chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer, modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer 500, inclusive of DLC; pg. 3) on the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3; Feng).
With respect to Claim 11, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 10, wherein the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3) is thicker than the DLC layer (thickness of the color layer is 0.3 to 0.5um, thickness of the interference layer is 0.1 to 0.15um, inclusive of color layer 400 being thicker than DLC layer of interference layer 500; pg. 4; Feng).
With respect to Claim 12, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 11, wherein the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3) is more than 200 nm thick (thickness of the color layer is 0.3 to 0.5um, inclusive of color layer being more than 200 nm or 0.2 μm thick; pg. 4; Feng).
Feng in view of Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the DLC layer is less than 100 nm thick.
However, Feng instead teaches the thickness of the interference layer 500, comprising the DLC layer, being 0.1 to 0.15 μm (i.e., 100 nm to 150 nm thick; pg. 4). It has been held that where the claimed ranges (less than 100 nm thick) and prior art (0.1 to 0.15 μm or 100 nm to 150 nm) do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985), see MPEP § 2144.
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value (0.1 to 0.15 μm or 100 nm to 150 nm) and the claimed range (less than 100 nm thick) is so minimal, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang to include the technical feature of adjusting the thickness of a interference layer comprising a DLC layer material to be less than 0.1 μm, for the purpose of adjusting the light absorption coefficient and optical path difference of an interference layer to achieve modulation of multiple colors, as taught by Feng (pg. 2-3).
Claims 4-7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. CN 216337918 U (see machine translation; herein after "Feng") in view of Zhang et al. US 20210395879 A1 (herein after "Zhang") and Argoitia et al. US 20030129404 A1 (herein after "Argoitia").
With respect to Claim 4, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 3, wherein the coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) further comprises a CrSiN layer (middle layer 300 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3) between the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3) and the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3; Feng).
Feng in view of Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the coating further comprises a CrSiN layer that is opaque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches achromatic multilayer diffractive pigments and foils ([0074]), comprising a central opaque layer of chromium disposed between stiffening protective layers ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coating of Feng in view of Zhang to include the technical feature of a central opaque layer, for the purpose of selecting a low reflectivity layer (e.g., chromium) having a large choice of thickness and dielectric materials that can be utilized to make dark, achromatic diffractive pigment flakes, as taught by Argoitia ([0070]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 5, Feng in view of Zhang and Argoitia teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 4, wherein the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; Feng) comprise a Cr seed layer (bottom layer 100 is one or more composite layer of chromium metal plating layer, bottom layer 100 used for improving bonding force of base material 600 and transition layer 200; pg. 3-4; Feng) on the conductive substrate (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3; Feng) and a CrSiN transition layer (transition layer 200 is a chromium-silicon alloy layer; pg. 4) between the Cr seed layer (bottom layer 100; pg. 3-4) and the opaque CrSiN layer (middle layer 300 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3; Feng in view of central opaque layer of chromium; [0070]; Argoitia).
Feng in view of Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the CrSiN transition layer comprises nitrogen content.
However, Argoitia further teaches suitable dielectric materials for a support layer (62; [0131]) including silicon nitride and diamond-like carbon, wherein the support layer (62; [0131]) can be composed of preformed dielectric or ceramic preflake material such as silicon dioxide, carbon, boron nitride, and various combinations thereof ([0131]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang and Argoitia to further include the technical feature of selecting a suitable or preformed dielectric material for a transition layer, for the purpose of utilizing a material having a high aspect ratio, as taught by Argoitia ([0131]). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 6, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 3.
Feng in view of Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the additional CrSiCN layer is thicker than the CrSiCN layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches achromatic multilayer diffractive pigments and foils ([0074]), wherein a dielectric layer (34; [0104]) having a physical thickness of about 200 nm to about 600 nm is thicker than a reflector layer (32; [0104]) having a physical thickness of about 40 nm to about 200 nm thick ([0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang to include the technical feature of adjusting the thicknesses of selected materials of a dielectric layer and a reflector layer, for the purpose of depositing dielectric and reflector layers of a desired two layer flake design to form a multiple layer coating having a thin film structure, as taught by Argoitia ([0105]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to adjust the thicknesses of the color-adjustable PVD film layers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 7, Feng in view of Zhang and Argoitia teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 6, wherein the additional CrSiCN layer (e.g., chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer, modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer 500; pg. 3; Feng in view of dielectric layer 34; Argoitia) is more than 60 nm thick (having a physical thickness of about 200 nm to about 600 nm, inclusive of 200 nm being more than 60 nm; [0104]; Feng in view of Argoitia) and the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3; Feng in view of reflector layer 32; Argoitia) is less than 50 nm thick (having a physical thickness of about 40 nm to about 200 nm thick, inclusive of 40 nm being less than 50 nm; [0104]; Feng in view of Argoitia).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang to include the technical feature of adjusting the thicknesses of selected materials of a dielectric layer and a reflector layer, for the purpose of depositing dielectric and reflector layers of a desired two layer flake design to form a multiple layer coating having a thin film structure, as taught by Argoitia ([0105]). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to adjust the thicknesses of the color-adjustable PVD film layers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.04.
With respect to Claim 13, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 10, further comprising a layer (middle layer 300; pg. 3) between the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3) and the CrSiCN layer (color layer 400; pg. 3), the layer comprising carbon, silicon, and nitrogen (middle layer 300 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3; Feng).
Feng in view of Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the apparatus further comprises a layer that is opaque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches achromatic multilayer diffractive pigments and foils ([0074]), comprising a central opaque layer of chromium disposed between stiffening protective layers ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang to include the technical feature of a central opaque layer, for the purpose of selecting a low reflectivity layer (e.g., chromium) having a large choice of thickness and dielectric materials that can be utilized to make dark, achromatic diffractive pigment flakes, as taught by Argoitia ([0070]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. CN 216337918 U (see machine translation; herein after "Feng") in view of Zhang et al. US 20210395879 A1 (herein after "Zhang") and Kim et al. KR 20210073140 A (see machine translation; herein after "Kim").
With respect to Claim 8, Feng in view of Zhang teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 3.
Feng in view of Zhang does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein an atomic percentage of Cr atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is less than 30%, an atomic percentage of Si atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is greater than 30%, and an atomic percentage of C atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is less than 30%.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches a phase shift blank mask and photo mask for a flat panel display ([0022]), comprising a phase inversion film (104; [0027]) made of CrSiCN ([0026]), wherein the phase inversion film (104; [0027]) has a composition ratio of silicon (Si) of 1 at% to 30 at%, chromium (Cr) of 5 at% to 80 at%, nitrogen (N) of 0 at% to 50 at%, and carbon of 0 at% to 30 at% ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang to include the technical feature of selecting and setting the content of materials within a CrSiCN layer, for the purpose of satisfying the physical and chemical properties of a film while improving optical characteristics, as taught by Kim ([0026] and [0032]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
Feng in view of Zhang and Kim does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein an atomic percentage of Si atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is greater than 30%.
However, it has been held that where the claimed ranges (atomic percentage of Si atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is greater than 30%) and prior art (composition ratio of silicon (Si) of 1 at% to 30 at%) do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, Titanium Metals Corporation of America, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed Cir. 1985), see MPEP § 2144.
Therefore, since this difference in prior art value (composition ratio of silicon (Si) of 1 at% to 30 at%) and the claimed range (atomic percentage of Si atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is greater than 30%) is so minimal, it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang and Kim to include the technical feature of selecting and setting the content of materials within a CrSiCN layer, for the purpose of satisfying the physical and chemical properties of a film while improving optical characteristics, as taught by Kim ([0026] and [0032]). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 9, Feng in view of Zhang and Kim teaches the apparatus (color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 3-4; fig. 1) of claim 8, wherein an atomic percentage of Cr atoms in the CrSiCN layer is greater than 25% (chromium (Cr) of 5 at% to 80 at%; [0027]; Kim), an atomic percentage of Si atoms in the CrSiCN layer is less than 40% (silicon (Si) of 1 at% to 30 at%; [0027]; Kim), and an atomic percentage of C atoms in the additional CrSiCN layer is greater than 20% (carbon of 0 at% to 30 at%; [0027]; Kim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the color-adjustable PVD film of Feng in view of Zhang and Kim to include the technical feature of selecting and setting the content of materials within a CrSiCN layer, for the purpose of satisfying the physical and chemical properties of a film while improving optical characteristics, as taught by Kim ([0026] and [0032]). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
Claims 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. CN 216337918 U (see machine translation; herein after "Feng") in view of Argoitia et al. US 20030129404 A1 (herein after "Argoitia").
With respect to Claim 15, Feng discloses an electronic device (electronic products comprising color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 1-2; fig. 1; preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02) comprising:
a conductive structure (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3); and
a coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) on the conductive structure (stainless steel metal base 600; pg. 3) and having a color (color-adjustable; pg. 3), the coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) comprising:
adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3),
a thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) on the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; fig. 1), wherein the thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) has an uppermost layer that includes CrSiCN (chromium-silicon nitrogen compound layer, modulation of various colors can be achieved by adjusting the carbon nitrogen content in the interference layer 500; pg. 3) and has a lowermost layer that includes CrSiCN (color layer 400 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3), and a layer (middle layer 300; pg. 3) between the thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) and the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; fig. 1), the layer comprising CrSiN (middle layer 300 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3).
Feng does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the coating comprises a layer that is opaque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches achromatic multilayer diffractive pigments and foils ([0074]), comprising a central opaque layer of chromium disposed between stiffening protective layers ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coating of Feng to include the technical feature of a central opaque layer, for the purpose of selecting a low reflectivity layer (e.g., chromium) having a large choice of thickness and dielectric materials that can be utilized to make dark, achromatic diffractive pigment flakes, as taught by Argoitia ([0070]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 16, Feng in view of Argoitia teaches the electronic device (electronic products comprising color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 1-2; fig. 1) of claim 15, wherein the uppermost layer (of interference layer 500; pg. 3) directly contacts the lowermost layer (color layer 400; pg. 3; fig. 1) of the thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3; Feng).
With respect to Claim 20, Feng discloses the electronic device (electronic products comprising color-adjustable PVD film; pg. 1-2; fig. 1) of claim 18, the coating (PVD film is deposited on the base material 600; pg. 3) further comprising: a layer (middle layer 300; pg. 3) between the thin-film interference filter (interference layer 500 of PVD thin film, interference of light through interference layer 500 on color layer 400; pg. 3) and the adhesion and transition layers (adhesion of the bottom layer 100 and transition layer 200; pg. 3; fig. 1), the layer comprising CrSiCN (middle layer 300 is chromium silicon carbon nitrogen compound layer; pg. 3).
Feng does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the coating further comprises a layer that is opaque.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Argoitia teaches achromatic multilayer diffractive pigments and foils ([0074]), comprising a central opaque layer of chromium disposed between stiffening protective layers ([0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coating of Feng to include the technical feature of a central opaque layer, for the purpose of selecting a low reflectivity layer (e.g., chromium) having a large choice of thickness and dielectric materials that can be utilized to make dark, achromatic diffractive pigment flakes, as taught by Argoitia ([0070]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See also MPEP § 2144.07.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 16 April 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights