DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites a “high refractive index layer” and a “low refractive index layer”. The terms “high” and “low” are relative terms, which are not defined by the claim and therefore renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the disputed limitation will be considered to be relative to a refractive index of 1.7 (i.e. a high refractive index is more than or equal to 1.7 and a low refractive index is less than 1.7) to be consistent with the description at paragraphs 0057-0058 of the instant specification.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the high refractive index layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a high refractive index layer is not previously introduced in the claim. It is suggested that claim 22 should be dependent from claim 5 instead of claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-12, 15, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mannheim Astete et al. (WO2021/105959, attached; hereafter “MA”).
Claim 1: MA teaches a solar control automotive glazing comprising at least one glass substrate with a coating stack (i.e. a coated glass; i.e. comprising a first glass substrate) (p. 1, l. 3-10). The coating stack on the glass includes a sequence of an IR reflective layer (i.e. a low-emissivity layer) of indium tin oxide (ITO), an absorbent layer of metal (i.e. a metal absorption layer is deposited on the low-emissivity layer), and a sub-stack of dielectric layers with AR function (i.e. an anti-reflection layer is deposited on the metal absorption layer; AR is defined at p. 5, l. 2-3) (p. 5, l. 11-26). MA teaches ITO is a transparent conductive oxide and has low emissivity properties (p. 2, l. 15-19).
Claim 2: MA teaches a specific example where the layer of ITO (i.e. the low-emissivity layer) has a thickness of 108 nm (p. 15, l. 13), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 4-5: MA teaches the sub-stack of dielectric layers with AR function (i.e. the anti-reflection layer) may have alternating refractive index HLHL or MHL, wherein HL refractive index layers may be Nb2O5/SiO2 (i.e. at least one high refractive index layer such as Nb2O5 and at least one low refractive index layer such as SiO2, which are alternately stacked) (p. 5, l. 11-26). Nb2O5 is an oxide of Nb, and SiO2 is an oxide of Si. Although MA does not specify a numeric value of the refractive index for these materials, the refractive index of Nb2O5 and of SiO2 are known and are considered to be within the recited ranges these materials are substantially identical to the instantly claimed materials for the high refractive index layer and the low refractive index layer, and substantially identical materials have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Claim 6: MA teaches a specific example where the layer of Nb2O5 (i.e. the high refractive index layer) has a thickness of 33 nm, and the layer of SiO2 (i.e. the low refractive index layer) has a thickness of 48 nm (p. 15, l. 15-16). These thicknesses each lie within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claims 7-8: MA teaches a transmittance of less than about 50% and reflectance of less than about 20% for wavelengths within about 250-1000 nm (which includes at the instantly claimed range of wavelengths) (Figs. 4A and 4B). Since light is transmitted, reflected, scattered or absorbed (based on basic physics of the behavior of light), having less than 70% of the light being transmitted or reflected would mean that at least part of the visible light is absorbed. MA teaches an absorbent layer of metal (i.e. a metal absorption layer) with thickness between 3 and 10 nm (p. 5, l. 16-18), and therefore the absorption of at least part of the visible light is considered to be attributed to the metal absorption layer (i.e. the metal absorption layer is configured as claimed). The range of thickness taught by MA of 3-10 nm is so close to the instantly claimed range as to be substantially identical, and also teaches a specific example of a layer of NiCr (i.e. the metal absorption layer based on the position in the sequence of layers) having a thickness of 6 nm (p. 15, l. 14), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. The sequence of layers also places the NiCr layer (i.e. the metal absorption layer) in direct contact with the ITO layer (i.e. the low-emissivity layer) (p. 15, l. 13-16).
Claim 9: MA teaches the coating stack has a sequence of layers starting from the glass substrate (i.e. deposited on one surface of the first glass substrate as outlined above regarding instant claim 1) of a barrier layer, an IR reflective layer of ITO (i.e. low-emissivity layer as outlined above), etc. (p. 5, l. 11-19) (i.e. an innermost barrier layer is further deposited between the low-emissivity layer and the one surface of the first glass substrate). The barrier layer is silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride with a thickness of between 10 and 100 nm (p. 5, l. 11-19), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 11: MA teaches the coating may be applied to the surface of a single glass layer, wherein glass refers to nonorganic transparent (i.e. clear) glass (p. 10, l. 12-23). The glass may be soda-lime glass (p. 11, l. 1-9), and typical soda lime glass reflects about 10% of the incident light (p. 3, l. 25-26). This is considered to teach the glass (i.e. the first glass substrate) may be made of clear glass with a visible light transmittance of about 90%, which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03. It is noted that MA teaches that the glass is not required to be transparent and substances may be added to alter the color and other properties (p. 11, l. 1-9). MA also teaches that an obscuration commonly of black enamel frit may be applied to the glass and the coating may be applied over the black frit (p. 10, l. 3-17).
Claim 12: MA teaches the glazing (i.e. the coated glass) as a vehicle roof glazing which may be laminated (p. 9, l. 6-9), wherein the laminate has two layers of glass that are permanently bonded together by a plastic bonding layer (p. 9, l. 16-17) (i.e. includes a second glass substrate and a bonding layer, the second glass substrate being bonded to the first glass substrate through the bonding layer). The coating being applied to surface four of the inner glass layer is embodied (p. 10, l. 12-13), where surface four is on the interior of the vehicle (p. 9, l. 20-21) (i.e. the coated glass is located inside the vehicle). MA teaches the film side reflection (i.e. the visible light reflectivity of the laminated glass measured from the interior of the vehicle) is less than 6% (p. 15, l. 7). MA teaches the light transmission Tvis (i.e. the visible light transmittance of the laminated glass) is less than 60% but this transmittance is for clear glass (p. 15, l. 1-6), whereas MA also teaches the coating being applied over black frit (p. 10, l. 12-17), or alternatively using dark tinted PVB interlayer, which provides a visible light transmission lower than 20% (p. 3, l. 19-24).
Claim 15: MA teaches the coating may be applied to the surface of a single glass layer, wherein glass refers to nonorganic transparent (i.e. clear) glass (p. 10, l. 12-23). The glass may be soda-lime glass (p. 11, l. 1-9), and typical soda lime glass reflects about 10% of the incident light (p. 3, l. 25-26). This is considered to teach the glass (i.e. the first glass substrate) may be made of clear glass with a visible light transmittance of about 90%, which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 17: MA teaches using dark tinted PVB interlayer (i.e. the bonding layer is a tinted resin layer), which provides a visible light transmission lower than 20% (p. 3, l. 19-24), which lies within the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 18: MA teaches the film side neutral color (i.e. as measured from the interior of the vehicle) has a color, wherein the coordinates correspond to value a of -5 to 0 and value b of -5 to 0, and each of these ranges lie within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
Claim 20: MA teaches an embodiment of the laminated sunroof structure having a PDLC or SPD film laminated between the glass and PVB (p. 16, l. 5-7). PDLC and SPD are conventionally known in the art to provide controllable opacity (i.e. dimming) for windows and other glass laminates.
Claim 21: MA teaches the sub-stack of dielectric layers with AR function (i.e. the anti-reflection layer) may have alternating refractive index HLHL or MHL, wherein HL refractive index layers may be Nb2O5/SiO2 (i.e. at least one high refractive index layer such as Nb2O5 and at least one low refractive index layer such as SiO2, which are alternately stacked) (p. 5, l. 11-26) or may have HL (claim 1 of MA) (i.e. a stack structure of two layers with one high refractive index layer and one low refractive index layer). MA teaches a specific example where the layer of Nb2O5 (i.e. the high refractive index layer) has a thickness of 33 nm, and the layer of SiO2 (i.e. the low refractive index layer) has a thickness of 48 nm (p. 15, l. 15-16). These thicknesses each lie within the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2131.03.
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 13-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (WO2021/105959, attached; hereafter “MA”) as applied to claims 5, 8 and 12 above.
Claim 13: The teachings of MA as applied to claim 12 are outlined above. Ma teaches that the MA teaches the film side reflection (i.e. the visible light reflectivity of the laminated glass measured from the interior of the vehicle) is less than 6% (p. 15, l. 7). This range overlaps the instantly claimed range 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. MA teaches the anti-reflective coating applied to the interior surface of the glazing addresses the issue of a reflected image becoming distracting and objectionable (p. 4, l. 1-5).
While not teaching a singular example having the instantly claimed reflectivity, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date because the overlapping range is considered to be prima facie obvious and prevents a reflected image which MA teaches to be distracting and objectionable, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 14: MA teaches that some privacy applications require very low visible light transmission, and glass compositions and coatings can get the visible light transmission down to about 20% (p. 3, l. 19-24), and small quantities of substances can be added to the glass composition to alter the color and other properties (p. 11, l. 6-9). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date based on the teachings of MA to use a glass composition (for either or both glass substrate) that includes color-altering substances (i.e. colored glass) and results in low visible light transmission (i.e. as low as 20% which overlaps the instantly claimed range; see MPEP § 2144.05) because MA teaches that these qualities can be desired, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 22: The teachings of MA regarding claim 8 (and regarding claim 5; see above regarding indefiniteness) are outlined above. MA teaches the sub-stack of dielectric layers with AR function (i.e. the anti-reflection layer) may have alternating refractive index HLHL or MHL, wherein HL refractive index layers may be Nb2O5/SiO2 (i.e. at least one high refractive index layer such as Nb2O5 and at least one low refractive index layer such as SiO2, which are alternately stacked) (p. 5, l. 11-26). MA teaches that materials for anti-reflective coatings having high index of refraction are well-known in the art and any other material in the same group may be substituted for another (p. 14, l. 16-22), but does not specifically teach and embodiment with the instantly claimed material. However, MA teaches that known transparent dielectric compounds with a refractive index >2.0 include niobium oxides, etc., as well as silicon nitrides, etc. (paragraph 0004). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the specific embodiments of MA to substitute silicon nitride instead of niobium oxide as the high refractive index layer because this is considered an art recognized suitable equivalent known for substantially identical purpose, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (WO 2021/105959, attached; hereafter “MA”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cid Aguilar et al. (US 2019/0330101, previously cited; hereafter “CA”).
Claim 10: The teachings of MA regarding claim 1 are outlined above. MA teaches generally that a wide range of coatings can be used to enhance the performance and properties, such as anti-scratch coating, etc. (p. 11, l. 21-25), but does not teach specific materials for such coatings.
In a related field of endeavor, CA teaches a glass provided with a low emissivity coating and solar control for application in double or triple window systems or for laminated glazing systems for automotive and other applications (para. 0001). CA teaches that increasing durability and chemical stability of the coating is desirable (para. 0008). Specifically, a dielectric material as a protective layer is placed over a multi-layer dielectric anti-reflective coating (i.e. as an outermost barrier layer) (Embodiments 1 and 2) to provide mechanical stability, thermal stability, chemical durability, and scratch resistance to the entire coating, whereby the protective layer is a embodied by a Si3N4 material as a protection layer with a thickness between 10 and 50 nm (paras. 0046 and 0053). This range of thickness overlaps the instantly claimed thickness, 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.
As MA and CA both teach a coated glass having a multilayered dielectric anti-reflective coating, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the coating of MA to include a protective coating as taught by CA because the protective coating provides stability, durability, and scratch-resistance, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (WO 2021/105959, attached; hereafter “MA”) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mitsumoto et al. (US 2016/0258694; hereafter “Mitsumoto”).
Claim 16: The teachings of MA regarding claim 12 are outlined above. MA teaches the glazing (i.e. the coated glass) as a vehicle roof glazing which may be laminated (p. 9, l. 6-9), wherein the laminate has two layers of glass that are permanently bonded together by a plastic bonding layer (p. 9, l. 16-17), and wherein the coating may be applied to the surface of a single glass layer (i.e. one of the glass layers), and “glass” refers to nonorganic transparent (i.e. clear) glass (p. 10, l. 12-23) that may be soda-lime glass (p. 11, l. 1-9). MA teaches that interlayers may be provided such as a type which has solar attenuating properties and that a variety of films may be incorporated into a laminate, such as for solar control, variable light transmission, providing a sunshade, color correction, etc., and would need plastic interlayer to bond the film to other layers of the laminate (p. 14, l. 1-15), but does not specifically teach the instantly claimed infrared reflecting coating.
In a related field of endeavor, Mitsumoto teaches a heat-shielding/heat-insulating member having a transparent substrate with a functional layer that includes an infrared reflective layer (i.e. the member provides solar control) and a protective layer (paragraph 0024). The infrared reflective layer includes a metal layer which is preferably silver (paragraph 0055 and 0057). The transparent substrate is a film or sheet of light-transmitting material (paragraph 0060), and a pressure-sensitive adhesive layer is disposed thereon so that the heat-shielding/heat-insulating member can be attached to a glass substrate (paragraph 0087), such as a float glass sheet (paragraph 0119).
As MA teaches a laminated glass, wherein glass is transparent (i.e. clear), and may include additional film(s) such as for solar control and Mitsumoto teaches a heat-shielding/heat-insulating member with an infrared reflective layer and adhesive for attachment to a glass substrate (i.e. a solar control film), they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laminated glass of MA to include the heat-shielding/heat-insulating member of Mitsumoto attached to one of the glass substrates because this is considered to be a conventionally known film for providing solar control (i.e. combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; see MPEP § 2143(I)(A)), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. Furthermore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill as an obvious design choice to choose either the number 2 (i.e. on the second glass substrate) or number 3 surface (i.e. on the first glass substrate) because MA teaches that additional film(s) would need to be bonded to other layers of the interlayer and so choosing the number 2 or number 3 surface would provide the adhesive layer taught by Mitsumoto for adhesion to the glass substrate and the bonding layer taught by MA for adhesion to the rest of the interlayer, 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