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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of species A (figure 1, claims 1-11 and 13-15) in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that species A and B are sufficiently related that search and examination of both species could be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because claims 12 and 16 are directed to multiple species. Therefore, search and examination of both species could not be carried out by the PTO without posing an undue burden on the Examiner. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “a b* value of the first peripheral region on the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between −2.6 and 0, and a b* value of the first primary region on the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between 0 and +2.5 when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the first part of the limitation is no longer valid if the viewing direction is not from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the b* value of the first peripheral region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is approximately −2.3” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the viewing direction is not from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the b* value of the first primary region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is approximately +2.4” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the viewing direction is not from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the b* value of the first peripheral region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between −2.6 and 0” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the viewing direction is not from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “the b* value of the first primary region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between 0 and +2.5” appears to be a conditional claim. For examining purposes, the examiner assumes the second part of the limitation is no longer valid if the viewing direction is not from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 6-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 2009/0116097).
Regarding claim 1, McCabe et al. (figure 16) discloses an electrochromic rearview mirror assembly (figure 2), comprising:
a first substrate (front glass), comprising a first surface facing a viewer and a second surface behind the first surface, the first surface comprising a first peripheral region and a first primary region surrounded by the first peripheral region, the second surface comprising a second peripheral region and a second primary region surrounded by the second peripheral region (seal area 941 and display area);
a second substrate (rear glass) disposed behind the first substrate, the second substrate comprising a third surface facing the first substrate and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface;
an electrochromic medium (EC medium) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a light-transmitting conductive layer disposed on the second primary region of the second surface of the first substrate (ITO 926);
a transflective film (translective reflector 926) disposed on the third surface of the second substrate, the transflective film facing the second primary region of the second surface of the first substrate; and
a hiding perimeter layer (black, opaque foam tape 925);
wherein, the transflective film is a metal-free multi-layer film.
McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate; a b* value of the first peripheral region on the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between −2.6 and 0, and a b* value of the first primary region on the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between 0 and +2.5 when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transflective film is a metal-free multi-layer film, a b* value of the first peripheral region on the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between −2.6 and 0, and a b* value of the first primary region on the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between 0 and +2.5 when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 2, McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the b* value of the first peripheral region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is approximately −2.3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the b* value of the first peripheral region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is approximately −2.3, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 3, McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the b* value of the first primary region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is approximately +2.4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the b* value of the first primary region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is approximately +2.4, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 6, McCabe et al. (figure 16) discloses the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, McCabe et al. (figure 16) discloses an electrochromic rearview mirror assembly (figure 2), comprising:
a first substrate (front glass), comprising a first surface facing a viewer and a second surface behind the first surface, the first surface comprising a first peripheral region and a first primary region surrounded by the first peripheral region, the second surface comprising a second peripheral region and a second primary region surrounded by the second peripheral region (seal area 941 and display area);
a second substrate (rear glass) disposed behind the first substrate, the second substrate comprising a third surface facing the first substrate and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface;
an electrochromic medium (EC medium) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a light-transmitting conductive layer disposed on the second primary region of the second surface of the first substrate (ITO 926);
a transflective film (translective reflector 926) disposed on the third surface of the second substrate; and
wherein, the transflective film is a metal-free multi-layer film;
a hiding perimeter layer (black, opaque foam tape 925).
The limitation “the transflective film has a b* value between −5.7 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly; and a hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate, the hiding perimeter layer having a b* value between −2.6 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the transflective film has a b* value between −5.7 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly; and a hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate, the hiding perimeter layer having a b* value between −2.6 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transflective film has a b* value between −5.7 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly and the hiding perimeter layer having a b* value between −2.6 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 8, McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the b* value of the first peripheral region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between −2.6 and 0. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the b* value of the first peripheral region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between −2.6 and 0, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 9, McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the b* value of the first primary region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between 0 and +2.5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the b* value of the first primary region when viewed from front of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly is between 0 and +2.5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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 13, McCabe et al. (figure 16) discloses an electrochromic rearview mirror assembly (figure 2), comprising:
a first substrate (front glass), comprising a first surface facing a viewer and a second surface behind the first surface, the first surface comprising a first peripheral region and a first primary region surrounded by the first peripheral region, the second surface comprising a second peripheral region and a second primary region surrounded by the second peripheral region (seal area 941 and display area);
a second substrate (rear glass) disposed behind the first substrate, the second substrate comprising a third surface facing the first substrate and a fourth surface opposite to the third surface;
an electrochromic medium (EC medium) disposed between the first substrate and the second substrate;
a light-transmitting conductive layer disposed on the second primary region of the second surface of the first substrate (ITO 926);
a transflective film (translective reflector 926) disposed on the third surface of the second substrate, the transflective film is a metal-free multi-layer film;
a hiding perimeter layer (black, opaque foam tape 925).
The limitation “the transflective film has a b* value between −5.7 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly; and a hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate, the hiding perimeter layer having a b* value between −2.6 and 0 prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention except for a hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate; wherein a b* value of the first primary region and a b* value of the first peripheral region of the first surface of the first substrate satisfy the following formula: b.sub.1*<b.sub.2* b.sub.1* is the b* value of the first peripheral region, and b.sub.2* is the b* value of the first primary region; and wherein, a b* value of the transflective film and a b* value of the hiding perimeter layer satisfy the following formula: b.sub.4*<b.sub.3* b.sub.3* is the b* value of the hiding perimeter layer prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly, and b.sub.4* is the b* value of the transflective film. prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the hiding perimeter layer disposed on the second peripheral region of the second surface of the first substrate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a b* value of the first primary region and a b* value of the first peripheral region of the first surface of the first substrate satisfy the following formula: b.sub.1*<b.sub.2* b.sub.1* is the b* value of the first peripheral region, and b.sub.2* is the b* value of the first primary region; and wherein, a b* value of the transflective film and a b* value of the hiding perimeter layer satisfy the following formula: b.sub.4*<b.sub.3* b.sub.3* is the b* value of the hiding perimeter layer prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly, and b.sub.4* is the b* value of the transflective film. prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
The limitation “a b* value of the first primary region and a b* value of the first peripheral region of the first surface of the first substrate satisfy the following formula: b.sub.1*<b.sub.2* b.sub.1* is the b* value of the first peripheral region, and b.sub.2* is the b* value of the first primary region; and wherein, a b* value of the transflective film and a b* value of the hiding perimeter layer satisfy the following formula: b.sub.4*<b.sub.3* b.sub.3* is the b* value of the hiding perimeter layer prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly, and b.sub.4* is the b* value of the transflective film. prior to fabrication of the electrochromic rearview mirror assembly” is a product by process claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP §2113.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCabe et al. (US 2009/0116097) in view of Lenef et al. (US 2020/0284401).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 14, McCabe et al. discloses the limitations as shown in the rejection of claims 1, 7, and 13 above. However, McCabe et al. is silent regarding wherein the transflective film comprises a first layer, a second layer disposed on the first layer, a third layers disposed on the second layer, a fourth layer disposed on the third layer and a fifth layer disposed on the fourth layer, the first layer is indium tin oxide (ITO), the second layer is silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2), the third layer is niobium pentoxide (Nb.sub.2O.sub.5), the fourth layer is silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2), and the fifth layer is amorphous silicon (a-Si). Lenef et al. (figure 2) teaches wherein the transflective film comprises a first layer, a second layer disposed on the first layer, a third layers disposed on the second layer, a fourth layer disposed on the third layer and a fifth layer disposed on the fourth layer, the first layer is indium tin oxide (ITO), the second layer is silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2), the third layer is niobium pentoxide (Nb.sub.2O.sub.5), the fourth layer is silicon dioxide (SiO.sub.2), and the fifth layer is amorphous silicon (a-Si) (reflectors 41-45; The reflector layers may be metal oxides or semiconductor oxides. Binary as well as ternary or quaternary oxides can be used. For example, the materials of the reflector layers may be at least one selected from: SiO.sub.2, Ta.sub.2O.sub.5, MgF.sub.2, ITO, ZnO, CaF.sub.2, BaF.sub.2, Al.sub.2O.sub.3, TiO.sub.2, ZrO.sub.2, Y.sub.2O.sub.3, HfO.sub.2, In.sub.2O.sub.3, and Nb.sub.2O.sub.5.; see at least paragraphs 0089 and 0103). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify transflective film as taught by Lenef et al. in order to achieve semiconductor light source that improves light-extraction efficiency.
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 15, McCabe et al. discloses the claimed invention but is silent regarding a thickness of the first layer is between 100 nm and 200 nm, a thickness of the second layer is between 50 nm and 100 nm, a thickness of the third layer is between 25 nm and 75 nm, a thickness of the fourth layer is between 75 nm and 125 nm, and a thickness of the fifth layer is between 10 nm and 50 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a thickness of the first layer is between 100 nm and 200 nm, a thickness of the second layer is between 50 nm and 100 nm, a thickness of the third layer is between 25 nm and 75 nm, a thickness of the fourth layer is between 75 nm and 125 nm, and a thickness of the fifth layer is between 10 nm and 50 nm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim, including 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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1428. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 AM -6:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAUREN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights