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
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-8, 12, 14-15, 17-19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. (US 2022/0299606 A1).
Re claim 1, Hart et al. discloses a window for a sensing system comprising: a substrate (30) comprising a first surface (32) and a second surface (34), the first surface and the second surface being primary surfaces of the substrate; a first layered film (36) disposed on the first surface of the substrate, the first layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the first layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the first layered film (paragraph 0036); and a maximum hardness, measured at the first layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, of at least 10 GPa (paragraph 0056), wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has: an average percentage transmittance, calculated over a 50 nm wavelength range of interest surrounding a central wavelength between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of greater than 90% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidence of less than or equal to 15o (Fig. 7a); an average reflectance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest, of less than 0.5% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of less than or equal to 15o (Fig. 7d), wherein an average percentage transmission, calculated from 400 nm to 700 nm, of greater than 80% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidences of less than or equal to 15o (Fig. 6a).
Hart et al. does not disclose the device comprising a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film. Hart et al. discloses a device wherein a second layered film may be disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film (paragraph 0046). Hart et al. also discloses that the quantity, the thicknesses and materials of the alternating layers determine the average transmittance over different wavelengths and average reflectance over different wavelengths (paragraph 0006). Therefore, obtaining the device which includes a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film, and configuring the quantity, thicknesses and materials of the layers in such a way to achieve the transmittance and reflectance characteristics of when only a first layered film is utilized is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japske, 86 USPQ 70. Employing the device comprising the second layered film simply rearranges parts of the invention, and does not alter the function of the device.
Re claim 2, Hart et al. does not disclose the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the front and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average P polarization transmittance and an average S polarization transmittance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest of greater than 85% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidences of less than equal to 60 degrees.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the front and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average P polarization transmittance and an average S polarization transmittance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest of greater than 85% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidences of less than equal to 60 degrees. Hart et al. discloses that unpolarized light calculated over 50 nm wavelength range of interest is greater than 95% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidences of less than or equal to 60 degrees. Therefore, for one polarization the transmittance would be at least 90% if the other polarization is 100%.
Regarding claim 4, Hart et al. does not disclose the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has a CIELAB L* value of less than or equal to 50 for angles of incidence of less than or equal to 60o on the first layered film, wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to -6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has a CIELAB L* value of less than or equal to 50 for angles of incidence of less than or equal to 60o on the first layered film, wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to -6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film since determining the CIELAB L* value and the CIELAB a* and b* values at certain angle of incidences are well known in the art to be based on the desired appearance. Therefore, employing the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has a CIELAB L* value of less than or equal to 50 for angles of incidence of less than or equal to 60o on the first layered film, wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to -6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film to achieve a desired appearance is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Re claim 6, Hart et al. discloses a device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first layer film is configured so that the window has an average reflectance, calculated throughout the visible spectrum, for light incident on the first layered film, of less than or equal to 30%, at angles of incidence of 60° or less (Fig. 6C). Hart et al. does not disclose the device comprising the second layered film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a second layered film. Hart et al. discloses a device wherein a second layered film may be disposed on the second surface of the substrate (paragraph 0046). Hart et al. also discloses that the quantity, the thicknesses and materials of the alternating layers determine the average reflectance over different wavelengths (paragraph 0006). Therefore, obtaining the device including a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate and wherein the layers are arranged in such a way as to obtain a particular reflectance characteristic is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japske, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 7, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average percentage transmittance, calculated over 50 nm wavelength range of interest, of greater than 99.5% for light normally incident on the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 7A, paragraph 0072).
Re claim 8, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the substrate is a glass substrate (paragraph 0031).
Re claim 12, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein one of the alternating layers of the first layered film that is farthest from the substrate forms a terminal surface material window, the terminal surface material of the window comprising the lower refractive material (Table 1).
Re claim 14, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein one of the alternating layers of the first layered film that is farthest from the substrate forms a terminal surface material of the window, the terminal surface material of the window comprising the lower refractive index material (Table 1).
Re claim 15, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the first layered film comprises a scratch resistant layer formed of one or more high refractive index materials and having a thickness of greater than or equal to 500 nm (Table 1, Medium 4; paragraph 0053).
Re claim 17, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the scratch resistant layer is separated from the terminal surface by a plurality of alternating layers of the one or more lower index materials and the one or more higher index materials of the first layered film (Table 1).
Re claim 18, Hart et al. does not disclose the device wherein the scratch resistant layer is separated from the terminal surface by at least 1000 nm (Table 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device wherein the scratch resistant layer is separated from the terminal surface by at least 1000 nm. Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the thicknesses of the higher refractive index material can be maximized to increase the scratch and/or damage of the window (paragraph 0053). Therefore, obtaining the device wherein the scratch resistant layer is separated from the terminal surface by at least 1000 nm by increasing the thicknesses of layers (40) to maximize scratch resistance of the window is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art.
Re claim 19, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the maximum hardness, measured at the layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, is at least 12 GPa (paragraph 0056).
Re claim 24, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein, through a wavelength range extending from 400 nm to 700 nm, a percentage transmission of the window is greater than or equal to 75% for light incident on the first layered film at angles of incidence of 60o or less (Fig. 6A).
Claim(s) 25, 27-29, 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hart et al. in view of Blais (US 2011/0277739 A1).
Re claim 25, Hart et al. discloses a window for a sensing system comprising: a substrate (30) comprising a first surface (32) and a second surface (34), the first surface and the second surface being primary surfaces of the substrate; a first layered film (36) disposed on the first surface of the substrate, the first layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the first layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the first layered film (paragraph 0036); and a maximum hardness, measured at the first layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, of at least 10 GPa (paragraph 0056), wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has: an average reflectance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest surrounding a central wavelength between 1400 nm and 1600 nm, of less than 0.5% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of less than or equal to 15o (Fig. 6c); an average percentage transmission, calculated from 400 nm to 700 nm, of greater than 70% for light incident on the first surface and the second surface at angles of incidences of less than or equal to 15o (Fig. 6a).
Hart et al. does not disclose the device comprising a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film. Hart et al. discloses a device wherein a second layered film may be disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film (paragraph 0046). Hart et al. also discloses that the quantity, the thicknesses and materials of the alternating layers determine the average transmittance over different wavelengths and average reflectance over different wavelengths (paragraph 0006). Therefore, obtaining the device which includes a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate, the second layered film comprising alternating layers of one or more higher refractive index materials and one or more lower refractive index materials, wherein refractive indices of the one or more higher refractive index materials of the second layered film are higher than refractive indices of the one or more lower refractive index materials of the second layered film, and configuring the quantity, thicknesses and materials of the layers in such a way to achieve the claimed transmittance and reflectance characteristics of when only a first layered film is utilized is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japske, 86 USPQ 70.
Hart et al. also does not disclose the device comprising a CIELB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to -6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film.
Blais discloses wherein a protection layer comprises a neutral color (paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to -6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 when viewed from a side of the first layered film since one would be motivated to reduce prominence of protector in an external environment. A CIELAB a* and b* values of greater than or equal to -6.0 and less than or equal to 6.0 achieves a neutral color.
Re claim 27, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein, throughout a wavelength range extending from 400 nm to 700 nm, a percentage transmission of the window is greater than or equal to 75% for light incident on the first layered film at angles of incidence of 60o or less (Fig. 6A).
Re claim 28, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered film are configured so that the window has an average percentage transmittance, calculated over the 50 nm wavelength range of interest, of greater than 90% for light incident on the first and the second surface at angles of less than or equal to 15o (Figs. 6a, 7a).
Re claim 29, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first film is configured so that the window has an average reflectance, calculated throughout the visible spectrum, for light normally incident on the first layered film, of less than or equal to 30% (Fig. 6a). Hart et al. does not disclose the device comprising the second layered film.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ the device comprising a second layered film. Hart et al. discloses a device wherein a second layered film may be disposed on the second surface of the substrate (paragraph 0046). Hart et al. also discloses that the quantity, the thicknesses and materials of the alternating layers determine the average reflectance over different wavelengths (paragraph 0006). Therefore, obtaining the device including a second layered film disposed on the second surface of the substrate and wherein the layers are arranged in such a way as to obtain a particular reflectance characteristic is based on a result effective variable, requiring routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held in the art that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japske, 86 USPQ 70.
Re claim 32, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein the quantity, the thicknesses, and materials of the alternating layers of the first and second layered films are configured so that the window has an average percentage transmittance, calculated over 50 nm wavelength range of interest, of greater than 99.5% for light normally incident on the first surface and the second surface (Fig. 7A, paragraph 0072).
Re claim 34, Hart et al. discloses the device wherein a hardness, measured at the first layered film and by the Berkovich Indenter Hardness Test, it at least 8 GPa over a depth range of 300 nm to 2000 nm (paragraph 0056).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD H KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2294. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10 am-6:30 pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/RICHARD H KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights