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 Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objection and thus the objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) not included below and therefore the unrecited rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 27, 35-36 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 27, the limitation “the layer comprising cerium oxide has a thickness of from 1 nm to 500 nm” is indefinite both because it is unclear whether the recited “a thickness” is intended to be the same as or different from the thickness recited in claim 25 and because the claim recites a broader range than recited in claim 25 and therefore it is unclear whether the claim is intended to require the layer have a thickness of 1 nm to 500 nm, a thickness less than 50 nm, or a thickness of 1 nm to less than 50 nm.
In claim 35 and 36, the limitation “the layer comprising cerium” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the “layer comprising cerium oxide” previously recited or a different layer. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claims to recite “the layer comprising cerium oxide”.
In claim 47, the limitation “the bath screen, shower screen and/or shower screen” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the second “shower screen” recited is intended to be the “splash screen” or an additional shower screen not previously recited.
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.
Claim(s) 25-32, 34-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP H06144870 A) in view of Kawazu (US 5876854 A).
Regarding claim 25, Kondo (JP H06144870 A) teaches a film on a glass substrate comprising cerium oxide (CeO2) and titanium oxide (TiO2) (further comprises titanium), where the cerium oxide is 30 to 80 wt% of the film, which is equivalent to about 16.6 to 65.0 mol% cerium oxide, which is equivalent to a Ce content of about 5.5 to 21.7 at% based on all components, wherein the cerium oxide containing layer is an outermost layer directly or indirectly on a first surface, and wherein the coated glass is resistant to abrasion, acid, and alkali (corrosion-resistant) (para 0007, 0013-0014, 0023, 0030).
Though Kondo does not explicitly teach the layer comprises 0.5 to 20 atomic% cerium, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kondo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 5.5 to 21.7 at% Ce, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Kondo teaches the cerium oxide containing film/layer has a thickness of 500 to 3000 angstroms, or 50 to 300 nm (para 0012-0013) but fails to explicitly teach a thickness less than 50 nm. However, Kawazu (US 5876854 A), in the analogous art of coated glass articles, teaches a UV absorbing coating including titanium oxide and cerium oxide, where the coating preferably has a thickness of 30 to 200 nm to achieve sufficient film strength and UV absorption (Abstract, col 2 line 34-40, col 3 line 4-10). Kondo teaches the film thickness is preferably 500 to 3000 angstroms, or 50 to 300 nm (para 0012), but does not provide a strictly required lower limit of thickness to achieve sufficient ultraviolet shielding and durability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the thickness of Kondo with the thickness of 30 to 200 nm taught by Kawazu because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of forming a film with sufficient ultraviolet shielding and durability. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Though the combination of Kondo and Kawazu fails to explicitly teach a thickness less than 50 nm, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kawazu range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 30 to 200 nm, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Alternatively, or in addition, Kondo and Kawazu recognize that the film thickness influences the film durability and ultraviolet shielding/absorption (Kondo para 0012; Kawazu col 3 line 4-10). Therefore, the film thickness is a recognized result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of thickness by routine optimization, which can include a film thickness of less than 50 nm. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches measuring a change in degree of clouding using a haze meter as well as that the acid and alkali resistance were evaluated by immersing the coated glass in a 10% hydrochloric acid (HCl) and 10% NaOH solution for 24 hours at room temperature, where the surface had excellent resistance to acid, alkali, and wear (Kondo para 0024, 0030). Kondo fails to explicitly teach the coated glass substrate exhibits a haze increase of 1% or below after 2 hours immersed in 1M NaOH or 1M HCl at 23°C. However, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches a similar film composition as the instant application and is described as resistant to HCl and NaOH. Similar compositions must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the coated glass of Kondo in view of Kawazu must necessarily yield 1% or less haze increase after 2 hours immersed in 1M NaOH or 1M HCl at 23°C. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the cerium oxide containing film/layer has a thickness of 30 to 200 nm (1 to 500 nm) (Kawazu col 3 line 4-10).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the cerium oxide containing layer has a refractive index of 1.8 to 2.7 (Kondo para 0013) but fails to explicitly teach a refractive index of 2.28 to 2.44. However, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kondo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 1.8 to 2.7, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the substrate to be coated may be untreated soda-lime glass and the lamination may be a single layer (the layer comprising cerium oxide is the only layer on the surface) (Kondo para 0011, 0022).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the substrate coated with the layer may be silica (silicon oxide) coated (an underlayer between the layer comprising cerium oxide and the first surface) (Kondo para 0022).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the underlayer is silica (silicon oxide) (Kondo para 0022).
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the layer comprising cerium oxide comprises 5.5 to 21.7 at% cerium, as described in the claim 25 rejection (Kondo para 0013). Though Kondo does not explicitly teach the layer comprises 1 to 10 atomic% cerium, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kondo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 5.5 to 21.7 at% Ce, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the layer comprising cerium oxide also comprises titanium forming 20 to 70 wt% titanium oxide (Kondo para 0013), which is equivalent to 35.013 mol% to 83.412 mol% titanium oxide, which is equivalent to a Ti content of about 35.013 at% to 83.412 at% based on titanium and cerium.
Though the aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the layer comprises 50 to 95 at% titanium based on titanium and cerium, one would have expected the use of any value within the Kondo range to have yielded similar results. Absent any showing of criticality, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any values within 35.0 to 83.4 at%, including values within the claimed range, with a reasonable expectation of success and with predictable results. Please see MPEP 2144.05 (I) for further details.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the layer comprising cerium oxide consists entirely of titanium oxide and 30 to 80 wt% cerium oxide (Kondo para 0013) and therefore comprises less than 10 at% silicon based on all components.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the layer comprising cerium oxide consists entirely of titanium oxide and 30 to 80 wt% cerium oxide (Kondo para 0013) and therefore comprises less than 10 at% aluminum based on all components.
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu fails to explicitly teach the coated glass substrate exhibits a water contact angle of greater than 30°. However, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches a similar film composition as the instant application. Similar compositions must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the coated glass of Kondo in view of Kawazu must necessarily yield a contact angle of greater than 30°. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the glass substrate may be strengthened and/or tempered (toughened) (Kondo para 0021-0024, 0030).
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP H06144870 A) in view of Kawazu (US 5876854 A), as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Kinoshita (US 20190016605 A1).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu teaches the cerium oxide refers to unstoichiometric compounds of titanium or cerium and oxygen (Kondo para 0015) but does not explicitly teach the layer is substoichiometric in oxygen. However, Kinoshita (US 20190016605 A1), in the analogous art of oxides, teaches substoichiometric oxides are applicable to heat ray shielding (para 0040). Kondo teaches titanium oxide can be used to shield against heat rays (para 0007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the titanium dioxide of Kondo with substoichiometric titanium oxide, as described by Kinoshita, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the layer of Kondo in view of Kinoshita is substoichiometric in oxygen because at least the titanium oxide is sub-stoichiometric.
Claim(s) 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP H06144870 A) in view of Kawazu (US 5876854 A), as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Kamimoto (TW 201439238 A).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Kondo and Kawazu fails to explicitly teach the coated glass substrate is used as a bath screen, shower screen and/or splash screen. However, Kamimoto (TW 201439238 A), in the analogous art of glass coatings, teaches shower doors (shower screen) as well as vehicle and building windows may be coated with a light shielding film for absorbing ultraviolet and near-infrared rays (Abstract, pg. 2-4, 9). Kondo teaches a film for blocking ultraviolet and near-infrared rays in windows of vehicles and buildings (para 0001, 0011, 0013, 0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the coated glass of vehicle or building windows described by Kondo with coated glass used for a shower door, as described by Kamimoto, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results of shielding ultraviolet and near-infrared rays. See MPEP 2143(I)(B). As a result, the combination of Kondo, Kawazu, and Kamimoto teaches the coated glass substrate is used as a shower door/screen.
Claim(s) 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kondo (JP H06144870 A) in view of Kawazu (US 5876854 A) and Kamimoto (TW 201439238 A), as applied to claim 46 above, and further in view of Shrode (US 4384376 A).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Kondo, Kawazu, and Kamimoto fails to explicitly teach fixings to fix the shower screen in position for use. However, Shrode (US 4384376 A), in the analogous art of shower doors/screens, teaches a shower door assembly having a glass panel attached to track members for allowing the door to slide, where the door may be attached to the track members by screws or adhesive bonding (fixings to fix the shower screen in position for use) (col 2 line 40-68, col 3 line 1-5; Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the shower door of Kondo in view of Kamimoto to track members using screws or adhesive bonding (fixings), as described by Shrode, in order to allow the shower door to slide open and closed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9-12, filed 7/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of .
The rejections relying upon Taga are withdrawn because Taga does not teach the layer comprises titanium.
Kawazu teaches a thickness range of a UV absorbing layer similar to that of Kondo.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights