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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (US 8,372,513, previously cited) as evidenced by Chen (NPL attached) for claim 2.
Claim 1: Anderson teaches a transparent substrate provided on at least one of its faces with an antireflection coating (Col. 1, l. 12-14). The antireflection coating includes multiple thin layers of a dielectric, especially of the oxide or nitride type, having alternatingly high and low refractive indexes (Col. 1, l. 66 to Col. 2, l. 3 and Col. 2, l. 23-29). The coating includes, in succession, a first layer with thickness of between 5 and 50 nm, a second layer with a thickness of between 5 and 50 nm, a third layer with thickness of at least 100 nm, and a fourth layer with a thickness of at least 80 nm (Col. 2, l. 3-16). Each of these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. The sequence of layers may be (SnO2 or Si3N4)/(SiO2)/(SnO2 or Si3N4)/(SiO2 or SiAlO) (Col. 5, l. 4-5) (i.e. a sequence of SnO2/SiO2/SnO2/SiO2 is a clear choice of the limited materials, and the material of each of these layers are a metal oxide). Substrates, especially of extra-clear glass, having this type of multilayer film may achieve transmission values of at least 90% integrated between (i.e. at wavelengths between) 400 and 1100 nm (Col. 5, l. 14-19). This range of light transmission and wavelengths overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. Anderson does not specify the angle at which the light transmission was measured, but Anderson teaches substantially identical materials and layer thicknesses as in the instant application (i.e. as recited in instant claims 1, 4, and 8), the coated substrate of Anderson is considered to have the recited light transmission at 60° because substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed coated article, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as Anderson teaches substantially identical materials and having layer thicknesses that overlaps the instantly claimed ranges, which are considered to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Anderson teaches that the glass for the coated substrate of the multilayer film may be in particular extra clear of the “Diamant” type, which is a glass with a low content of iron oxides (Col. 4, l. 60-67). Although Anderson does not teach the specific iron content, the content of Diamant glass is known to be less than 120 PPM (i.e. less than about 0.012%) as evidenced by Chen (Chen, p. 3, “Saint Gobain” and “Safety”), and therefore the Diamant type of glass taught by Anderson is considered to have this iron content of less than 120 PPM (i.e. less than about 0.012%), which overlaps the instantly claimed range.
Claim 3: Anderson teaches appropriate materials for constituting the first and/or third layer are based on one or more select metal oxides (Col. 4, l. 3-10). The teaching of choosing a material for the first “and” third layer is considered to teach where the first and third layers may be chosen to be the same material.
Claim 4: Anderson teaches the materials for the first and/or third layer (i.e. the teaching of “or” is considered to be these layers each individually chosen) are based on one or more metal oxides or nitrides chosen from zinc oxide, tin oxide, zinc stannate, silicon nitride, etc. (Col. 4, l. 3-10).
Claim 5: Anderson teaches appropriate materials for constituting the second and/or the fourth layer are based on silicon oxide, silicon-aluminum mixed oxide, etc. (Col. 4, l. 50-59). The teaching of choosing a material for the second and fourth layer is considered to teach where the second and fourth layers may be chosen to be the same material.
Claims 6-8: Anderson teaches that the second and/or fourth layers (i.e. the teaching of “or” is considered to be these layers each individually chosen) are based on silicon oxide, silicon oxynitride, silicon-aluminum mixed oxide, etc. (Col. 4, l. 50-59).
Claims 9-10: Anderson teaches the first layer has a geometrical thickness e1 (i.e. the thickness of the first dielectric layer) of between 5 and 50 nm and e2 (i.e. the thickness of the second dielectric layer) is between 5 and 50 nm (Col. 2, l. 3-16). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 11-12: Anderson teaches the third layer has a geometric thickness of e3 (i.e. the thickness of the third dielectric layer) of at least 100 nm or at least 120 nm, and e4 (i.e. the thickness of the fourth dielectric layer) is at least 80 nm or at least 90 nm (Col. 2, l. 3-16). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 13-14: Anderson teaches the antireflection coating comprises in succession a first layer, second layer, third layer, and fourth layer (Col. 2, l. 1-16). Being in succession and not disclosing intervening layers, the first and second layers (i.e. first dielectric layer and second dielectric layer) are considered to be in direct contact with one another, the third and fourth layers (i.e. the third dielectric layer and fourth dielectric layer) are considered to be in direct contact with one another, and the second and third layers (i.e. the second dielectric layer and the third dielectric layer) are in direct contact with one another.
Claim 15: Anderson teaches a broadband antireflection effect with a substantial increase in the transmission over a wavelength range extending at least between 400 and 1100 nm (Col. 2, l. 42-49), which includes (i.e. overlaps) the instantly claimed wavelength. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 16-17: Anderson teaches that substrates, especially of extra-clear glass, having this type of multilayer film may achieve transmission values of at least 90% integrated between (i.e. at wavelengths between) 400 and 1100 nm (Col. 5, l. 14-19). This range of light transmission overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 18: Anderson teaches a substrate and an antireflection film of the four-layer type and each of the layers are made of a dielectric (i.e. consists of the substrate, the first dielectric layer, the second dielectric layer, the third dielectric layer, and the fourth dielectric layer) (Col. 1, l. 66 to Col. 2, l. 41).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yavari et al. (US 2022/0388281) in view of Anderson et al. (US 8,372,513, previously cited).
Claims 19-20: Yavari teaches a laminated glazing, in particular a windshield, in a vehicle, in association with a system for viewing in the near infrared (paragraph 0001), wherein remote sensing by laser or LIDAR can be used in autonomous vehicles (i.e. also considered to teach an autonomous vehicle comprising a LiDAR system comprising a windshield) (paragraphs 0002-0003). Yavari teaches the windshield/glazing comprises a first glass sheet (i.e. a first ply) with a first external main face F1 and a second internal main face F2 (paragraph 0008) and a second glass sheet (i.e. a second ply) with a third main face F3 facing the F2 side and a fourth internal main face F4 (paragraph 0010). Advantageously, the first glass sheet with an antireflective coating exhibits a total transmission of at least 90.0% at a working wavelength of in particular 900-910 nm and/or 1545-1555nm (or generally of 800 nm to 1800 nm; paragraph 0011), measured at 90° and even preferably also at 60°, on the face F2 and/or on the face F1 side (i.e. on the first surface is an obvious choice) (paragraph 0024). The first glass sheet exhibits a content by weight of total iron oxide of at most 0.05% and even of at most 0.015% (paragraph 0012), such as Diamant glass (paragraph 0108). The system for infrared viewing at the working wavelength (i.e. the LiDAR system for sending/receiving radiation – i.e. the LiDAR sensor) is positioned in the passenger compartment behind the windshield (paragraphs 0141 and 0148), and the interior face F4 is on the passenger compartment side of the windshield (paragraphs 0149-0151) (i.e. the LiDAR sensor is position proximate the fourth surface). Yavari teaches the antireflective coating can comprise a stack of thin dielectric layers of metal or silicon oxides and/or nitrides alternating high and low refractive indices (paragraph 0071). However, Yavari does not teach more specifically the layer composition and thicknesses of the dielectric layers forming the antireflective layer.
In a field of endeavor related to a multilayer-coated glass, Anderson teaches a transparent substrate provided on at least one of its faces with an antireflection coating (Col. 1, l. 12-14). The antireflection coating includes multiple thin layers of a dielectric, especially of the oxide or nitride type, having alternatingly high and low refractive indexes (Col. 1, l. 66 to Col. 2, l. 3 and Col. 2, l. 23-29). The coating includes, in succession, a first layer with thickness of between 5 and 50 nm, a second layer with a thickness of between 5 and 50 nm, a third layer with thickness of at least 100 nm, and a fourth layer with a thickness of at least 80 nm (Col. 2, l. 3-16). Each of these ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. The sequence of layers may be (SnO2 or Si3N4)/(SiO2)/(SnO2 or Si3N4)/(SiO2 or SiAlO) (Col. 5, l. 4-5) (i.e. a sequence of SnO2/SiO2/SnO2/SiO2 is a clear choice of the limited materials, and the material of each of these layers are a metal oxide). Substrates, especially of extra-clear glass, having this type of multilayer film may achieve transmission values of at least 90% integrated between (i.e. at wavelengths between) 400 and 1100 nm (Col. 5, l. 14-19). This range of light transmission and wavelengths overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. Anderson does not specify the angle at which the light transmission was measured, but Anderson teaches substantially identical materials and layer thicknesses as in the instant application (i.e. as recited in instant claims 1, 4, and 8), the coated substrate of Anderson is considered to have the recited light transmission at 60° because substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
As Yavari and Anderson both teach a low iron glass (and specifically a Diamant glass being suitable) having an antireflection multilayer coating (i.e. a coated glass substrate), they are analogous. Further, both Yavari and Anderson teach the antireflection multilayer as having alternating layers of high and low refractive index. Since Yavari does not teach specific details of the composition and layer thickness of the antireflection multilayer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the windshield of Yavari (i.e. the LiDAR system comprising the windshield and the autonomous vehicle comprising the LiDAR system and the windshield) to include where the antireflection multilayer coated glass (i.e. the first ply) is the multilayer coated glass of Anderson because of the substantial overlap of the substrate material, the alternating refractive index of the layers of the multilayer, and the desired light transmission properties making it obvious that the multilayer coated glass of Anderson is considered a suitable substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (i.e. both being for antireflection in overlapping wavelength ranges), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights