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 05/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 & 11, in response to applicant’s arguments that Paulotto (US 2020/0136234 A1) in view of Koyama (US 2015/0061942 A1) and Lin (US 2008/0139262 A1) would change the principle of operation of Koyama, this is not persuasive. 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). Applicant argues that “Paulotto teaches design principles that are fundamentally incompatible with those of Koyoma” (Remarks, pg. 9) without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references, failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b). Applicant makes reference to the front plate 25 and the transparent substrate 23 recited by Koyama in FIG. 5, however Examiner notes no recitation of the aforementioned elements in the previous office action mailed 05/14/2026.
Further, Koyama discloses, in figure 2B, that the second substrate 15 is “preferable” to have a “translucency” (Para [0036]), however no requirement is made. The substrate 15 with a translucency is not a functional requirement, only the inclusion of a nitrogen atom for the chemical conductive process between the substrate 15 and the conductive pattern portion 17 (Para [0034]). Thus, the second substrate comprising an opaque material is disclosed by Paulotto in figure 6 in reference to display layers 126, to achieve the benefit of implementing the second substrate that reflects any unwanted transmissions (Paulotto, Para [0078]) in the frequency selective substrate assembly, as disclosed by Koyama and Lin.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Paulotto renders Koyama and Lin’s claimed invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, this is not persuasive. Koyama relates to a translucent conductive patterned member that retains sufficient conductivity in a display device (Koyama, Para [0013]). The second substrate body 15 of Koyama, as disclosed in figure 2B, is “preferable” to have a “translucency” (Para [0036]). The chemical process of Koyama between a nitrogen atom of the second substrate 15 and silver of the conductive pattern portion 17 is utilized for the conductive patterned member. Paulotto relates to an electronic device display with sufficient conductivity for communications at high frequencies (Paulotto, Para [0004]). Paulotto discloses, in figure 6, that the display layers 126 may include “optically opaque substrate layers” (Para [0076]). Utilizing the opaque substrate layers of the display layers 126 of Paulotto as the second substrate 15 of Koyama to attenuate unwanted frequencies (Paulotto, Para [0078]) would ensure Koyama retains its sufficient conductivity as it does not attenuate signals in the desired frequency range, as is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Further, as explained previously above, the substrate 15 of Koyama with a translucency is not recited as a functional requirement to achieve its intended purpose. Thus, the second substrate comprises an opaque material is disclosed, as required by the invention as claimed.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Paulotto does not disclose “an optically opaque substrate on which a conductive material layer is disposed on”, this is not persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Koyama discloses, in figure 2B, that the conductive pattern portion 17 is formed on the second surface of the second substrate 15. Paulotto discloses, in figure 6, where a substrate of the display layers 126 comprises an opaque material (Para [0076]). Thus, the combination of Koyama and Paulotto disclose a conductive material layer disposed on the inner surface of the second substrate; and wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material, as required by the invention as claimed.
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 1-2, 8-9, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama (US 2015/0061942 A1) in view of Lin (US 2008/0139262 A1), and further in view of Paulotto (US 2020/0136234 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koyama discloses, in figure 2B, a frequency selective substrate assembly comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate each comprising an inner surface opposite an outer surface (substrate 15 & substrate 19 comprising an inner surface opposite an outer surface);
a conductive material layer disposed on the inner surface of the second substrate (Para [0036], “conductive pattern portion 17”…formed on the second surface of substrate 15); and
an adhesive layer disposed between the inner surface of the first substrate and the inner surface of the second substrate such that the conductive material layer is positioned between the inner surface of the second substrate and the adhesive layer and the adhesive layer bonds the first substrate to the second substrate (Para [0036], “adhesive layer 18 provided in the order, then, used after transferring on a suitable substrate body 19”…i.e., bonding substrate 15 to substrate 19…with conductive pattern portion 17 provided between inner surface of the second substrate 15 and the adhesive layer 18), but fails to disclose wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises a reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less; and
wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material.
However, Lin discloses, in figure 3 & 7, wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises a reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less (Para [0023], “FIG. 7 illustrates filtering results of the multiband frequency selective filter in practice. In FIG. 7, the transverse axis represents frequency, and the longitudinal axis represents reflection coefficient”…depicted as less than 0.7 over approximately 0.3 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the reflection coefficient of Lin in the substrate assembly of Koyama, to achieve the benefit of selectively passing signals in the desired frequency bands while adjusting the resonant frequency and bandwidth as necessary (Lin, Para [0023]).
In combination, Koyama and Lin fail to disclose wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material.
However, Paulotto discloses, in figure 6, wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material (Para [0076], “display layers 126 may include…optically opaque substrate layers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the opaque material of Paulotto in the second substrate of Koyama and Lin, to achieve the benefit of reflecting any unwanted transmissions via the second substrate layer (Paulotto, Para [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein the conductive material layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide, a conductive polymer, a carbon nanotube wire, graphene, or a metal mesh (Para [0117], “the conductive pattern portion 17 having a translucency, which is formed of silver or an alloy having silver as a main component”…i.e., the translucency of the pattern portion conforming to a metal mesh).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein a thickness of the first substrate is different than a thickness of the second substrate (see figure 2B disclosing substrates 19 & 15 with differing thicknesses).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein an electric conductivity of the conductive material layer is greater than or equal to 1 million Siemens per meter (Para [0117], “conductive pattern portion 17 having a translucency, which is formed of silver or an alloy having silver as a main component”…Silver having an electric conductivity greater than 1 million Siemens per meter).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein the conductive material layer is directly disposed on the inner surface of the second substrate (Para [0036], “conductive pattern portion 17”…formed on the second surface of substrate 15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, & 21 above, and further in view of Bard et al. (US 2020/0310014 A1), hereinafter Bard.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises glass having an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm.
However, Bard discloses, in figure 3, wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises glass having an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm (Para [0073], “visible light transmittance [i.e., about 300 nm to about 800 nm]…4% reflectivity typically allocated to a glass substrate 4, 8”…i.e., a transmittance greater than 80%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the substrate properties of Bard in the frequency selective substrate assembly of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of target maximum light transmission through the glass substrates while minimizing absorption in visible light frequencies, allowing more free to design the infrared reflective or infrared absorbing function of the conductive material layer (Bard, Para [0055]).
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, & 21 above, and further in view of Hong et al. (US 12,074,371 B2), hereinafter Hong.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises a material having a tensile strength that is equal to or greater than 1 Newton per centimeter.
However, Hong discloses, in figure 1A, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a material having a tensile strength that is equal to or greater than 1 Newton per centimeter (Col. 5, Lines 20, “the adhesive layer may include a metal such as titanium (Ti)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the adhesive material of Hong in the frequency selective substrate assembly of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., incorporating an adhesive layer with strong bonding properties, as is readily known to be incorporated as an adhesive layer to perform its base function of adhering layers together], and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm.
However, Hong discloses, in figure 1A, wherein the adhesive layer (Col. 5, Lines 13-16, “mmW reflective structure 100 may include…an adhesive layer for bonding”) comprises an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm (Col. 6, Lines 48-50, “the transmittance of electromagnetic waves of the visible light band [i.e., about 300 nm to about 800 nm] in the mmW reflective structure 100 may be about 80% or more.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the transmittance properties of Hong in the adhesive layer of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of ensuring the transmittance of electromagnetic waves of the assembly is maintained at a high level when incorporated within a structure exposed to visible light (Hong, Col. 12, Lines 21-26).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, & 21 above, and further in view of Jia (US 2020/0411993 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises the reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less at an operation frequency of 28 GHz.
However, Jia discloses, in figure 21, wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises the reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less at an operation frequency of 28 GHz (Para [0105], “reflection coefficient is less than or equal to -10 dB [i.e., less than 0.7]…operating frequency range of 22.288 GHz to 30.511 GHz”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the operating frequency range of Jia in the frequency selective substrate assembly of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of operating at a desired frequency range with minimized signal reflection and thus minimized transmission loss (Jia, Para [0104]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto as applied to claims 1-2, 8-9, & 21 above, and further in view of Bard, and even further in view of Hu et al. (US 11,817,630 B2).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein a dielectric constant of the adhesive layer is in a range of 2 to 4 and a thickness of the adhesive layer is in a range of 25 micrometers to 175 micrometers.
However, Bard discloses, in figure 1, wherein a dielectric constant of the adhesive layer is in a range of 2 to 4 (Para [0051], “a polymer interlayer 6 including polyvinyl butyral”…having a dielectric constant in a range of 2 to 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the material of Bard in the adhesive layer of Koyama, Lin, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of implementing a polymer-based adhesive layer with beneficial acoustic insulation properties while maintaining high transmittance in the visible light wavelength range (Bard, Para [0051] & [0052]).
In combination, Koyama, Lin, Paulotto, and Bard fail to disclose a thickness of the adhesive layer is in a range of 25 micrometers to 175 micrometers.
However, Hu discloses, in figure 5A, a thickness of the adhesive layer is in a range of 25 micrometers to 175 micrometers (Col. 8, Lines 67, “he bonding film 503 thickness h.sub.2 may be set to be 0.05 mm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the thickness of Hu in the adhesive layer of Koyama, Lin, Paulotto, and Bard, to achieve the benefit of implementing an adhesive layer with sufficient thickness to maintain a strong bond between substrates while not compromising transmittance in the visible light wavelength range (Hu, Col. 5, Lines 11-22).
Claims 11-12, 18-19, & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koyama in view of Yang (CN 110416739 A), and further in view of Paulotto.
Regarding claim 11, Koyama discloses, in figure 2B, a frequency selective substrate assembly comprising:
a first substrate and a second substrate each comprising an inner surface opposite an outer surface (substrate 15 & substrate 19 comprising an inner surface opposite an outer surface);
a second conductive material layer disposed on the inner surface of the second substrate (Para [0036], “conductive pattern portion 17”…formed on the second surface of substrate 15); and
an adhesive layer disposed between the inner surface of the first substrate and the inner surface of the second substrate, the adhesive layer coupling the first substrate to the second substrate (Para [0036], “adhesive layer 18 provided in the order, then, used after transferring on a suitable substrate body 19”…i.e., bonding substrate 15 to substrate 19…with conductive pattern portion 17 provided between inner surface of the second substrate 15 and the adhesive layer 18), but fails to disclose a first conductive material layer deposited on the inner surface of the first substrate;
wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises a reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less; and
wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material.
However, Yang discloses, in figure 2 & 7, a first conductive material layer deposited on the inner surface of the first substrate (frequency selective layer 121 on the inner surface of substrate 110); and
wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises a reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less (Para [0061], FIG. 7 depicts the transmission coefficient curve below -10 dB [i.e., less than 0.7] in the present frequency range 21.8 GHz to 30.8 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the conductive material and reflection coefficient of Yang in the substrate assembly of Koyama, to achieve the benefit of selectively passing signals in the desired frequency bands while minimizing energy loss in the radio frequency signal (Yang, Para [0059]).
In combination, Koyama and Yang fail to disclose wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material.
However, Paulotto discloses, in figure 6, wherein the second substrate comprises an opaque material (Para [0076], “display layers 126 may include…optically opaque substrate layers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the opaque material of Paulotto in the second substrate of Koyama and Yang, to achieve the benefit of reflecting any unwanted transmissions via the second substrate layer (Paulotto, Para [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, and Yang continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein each of the first conductive material layer and the second conductive material layer comprises a transparent conductive oxide, a conductive polymer, a carbon nanotube wire, graphene, or a metal mesh (Para [0039], “frequency selective layer [i.e., conductive layers 121 & 122] comprises multiple first metal…and a plurality of second metal…first metal line and the second metal line has a plurality of meshes”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein a thickness of the first substrate is different than a thickness of the second substrate (see figure 2B disclosing substrates 19 & 15 with differing thicknesses).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein an electric conductivity of the first conductive material layer and the second conductive material layer is greater than or equal to 1 million Siemens per meter (Para [0040], “frequency selective layer [121 or 122]…can adopt sputtering Mo/Al/Mo metal layer…conductive silver slurry, nanometer silver, metal mesh”…Silver, Molybdenum, and Aluminum all having an electric conductivity greater than 1 million Siemens per meter).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, and Koyama continues to disclose, in figure 2B, wherein the second conductive material layer is deposited directly on the inner surface of the second substrate (Para [0036], “conductive pattern portion 17”…formed on the second surface of substrate 15), but fails to disclose wherein the first conductive material layer is deposited directly on the inner surface of the first substrate.
However, Yang continues to disclose, in figure 2, wherein the first conductive material layer is deposited directly on the inner surface of the first substrate (frequency selective layer 121 on the inner surface of substrate 110).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto as applied to claims 11-12, 18-19, & 22 above, and further in view of Bard.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, but fail to disclose wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises glass having an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm.
However, Bard discloses, in figure 3, wherein each of the first substrate and the second substrate comprises glass having an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm (Para [0073], “visible light transmittance [i.e., about 300 nm to about 800 nm]…4% reflectivity typically allocated to a glass substrate 4, 8”…i.e., a transmittance greater than 80%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the substrate properties of Bard in the frequency selective substrate assembly of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of target maximum light transmission through the glass substrates while minimizing absorption in visible light frequencies, allowing more free to design the infrared reflective or infrared absorbing function of the conductive material layer (Bard, Para [0055]).
Claims 14 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto as applied to claims 11-12, 18-19, & 22 above, and further in view of Hong.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, but fail to disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises a material having a tensile strength that is equal to or greater than 1 Newton per centimeter.
However, Hong discloses, in figure 1A, wherein the adhesive layer comprises a material having a tensile strength that is equal to or greater than 1 Newton per centimeter (Col. 5, Lines 20, “the adhesive layer may include a metal such as titanium (Ti)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the adhesive material of Hong in the frequency selective substrate assembly of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions [i.e., incorporating an adhesive layer with strong bonding properties, as is readily known to be incorporated as an adhesive layer to perform its base function of adhering layers together], and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415‐421, 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, but fail to disclose wherein the adhesive layer comprises an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm.
However, Hong discloses, in figure 1A, wherein the adhesive layer (Col. 5, Lines 13-16, “mmW reflective structure 100 may include…an adhesive layer for bonding”) comprises an average transmittance greater than 80% over a wavelength range from about 300 nm to about 800 nm (Col. 6, Lines 48-50, “the transmittance of electromagnetic waves of the visible light band [i.e., about 300 nm to about 800 nm] in the mmW reflective structure 100 may be about 80% or more.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the transmittance properties of Hong in the adhesive layer of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of ensuring the transmittance of electromagnetic waves of the assembly is maintained at a high level when incorporated within a structure exposed to visible light (Hong, Col. 12, Lines 21-26).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto as applied to claims 11-12, 18-19, & 22 above, and further in view of Jia.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, but fail to disclose wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises the reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less at an operation frequency of 28 GHz.
However, Jia discloses, in figure 21, wherein the frequency selective substrate assembly comprises the reflection coefficient of 0.7 or less at an operation frequency of 28 GHz (Para [0105], “reflection coefficient is less than or equal to -10 dB [i.e., less than 0.7]…operating frequency range of 22.288 GHz to 30.511 GHz”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the operating frequency range of Jia in the frequency selective substrate assembly of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of operating at a desired frequency range with minimized signal reflection and thus minimized transmission loss (Jia, Para [0104]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto as applied to claims 11-12, 18-19, & 22 above, and further in view of Bard, and even further in view of Hu.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto disclose the frequency selective substrate assembly of claim 11, but fail to disclose wherein a dielectric constant of the adhesive layer is in a range of 2 to 4 and a thickness of the adhesive layer is in a range of 25 micrometers to 175 micrometers.
However, Bard discloses, in figure 1, wherein a dielectric constant of the adhesive layer is in a range of 2 to 4 (Para [0051], “a polymer interlayer 6 including polyvinyl butyral”…having a dielectric constant in a range of 2 to 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the material of Bard in the adhesive layer of Koyama, Yang, and Paulotto, to achieve the benefit of implementing a polymer-based adhesive layer with beneficial acoustic insulation properties while maintaining high transmittance in the visible light wavelength range (Bard, Para [0051] & [0052]).
In combination, Koyama, Yang, Paulotto, and Bard fail to disclose a thickness of the adhesive layer is in a range of 25 micrometers to 175 micrometers.
However, Hu discloses, in figure 5A, a thickness of the adhesive layer is in a range of 25 micrometers to 175 micrometers (Col. 8, Lines 67, “he bonding film 503 thickness h.sub.2 may be set to be 0.05 mm”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the thickness of Hu in the adhesive layer of Koyama, Yang, Paulotto, and Bard, to achieve the benefit of implementing an adhesive layer with sufficient thickness to maintain a strong bond between substrates while not compromising transmittance in the visible light wavelength range (Hu, Col. 5, Lines 11-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sekisui Chemical Co., LTD., “Polyvinyl Butyral Resin S-LEC B”, 2018. [discloses the known dielectric constant of polyvinyl Butyral (PVB)].
ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc., “Titanium Ti-6Al-4V (Grade 5), Annealed”, 2016, [discloses the known tensile strength of titanium].
Anne, M., Helmenstine, “Table of Electrical Resistivity and Conductivity”, 2017, [discloses the known electrical conductivity of Silver and Aluminum].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TYLER J PERENY whose telephone number is (571)272-4189. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/TYLER J PERENY/Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights