DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 2 recites “the sheet”, which should be “the transparent plastic sheet”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-8, line 1 recite “The sheet”, which should be “The transparent plastic sheet”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
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 1, 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20180032332 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Lee et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claims 1 and 6-8, Lee et al. disclose a transparent polycarbonate sheet (transparent plastic sheet) having excellent near-infrared blocking and scratch resistance (see Title). The transparent polycarbonate sheet is a multilayer structure comprising a base layer comprising a polycarbonate resin (thermoplastic polymer) and a sheath layer (skin layer) comprising a polycarbonate resin (thermoplastic polymer), ultraviolet absorber (ultraviolet blocking agent), composite tungsten oxide (tungsten oxide) that provides near-infrared blocking (infrared blocking agent) and antioxidant (see Abstract and paragraphs 0061, 0065, 0066). The base layer and the sheath layer are formed by coextrusion method (see paragraph 0070). The thickness of the sheath layer is 0.01 to 1 mm (see paragraph 0068). Given that the transparent polycarbonate sheet (transparent plastic sheet) has excellent near-infrared blocking and given that the sheath layer of the transparent polycarbonate sheet comprises ultraviolet blocking agent and infrared blocking agent, the transparent polycarbonate sheet is for blocking ultraviolet and infrared rays as presently claimed.
In light of the overlap between the claimed transparent plastic sheet and that disclosed by Lee et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a transparent plastic sheet that is both disclosed by Lee et al. and is encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Lee et al. disclose composite tungsten oxide (tungsten oxide) that provides near-infrared blocking (infrared blocking agent), wherein the composite tungsten oxide has a particle size of 1 nm to 100 microns (see paragraph 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. disclose the sheath layer (skin layer) c0omprises 50 to 89 wt% of polycarbonate resin, 0.1 to 5 wt% of an ultraviolet absorber (ultraviolet blocking agent) and 0.00001 to 1 wt% of composite metal oxide (infrared blocking agent) (paragraph 0008). The amount of antioxidant is 0.01 to 10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of sheath layer (paragraph 0066). Accordingly, the amount of antioxidant is 0.01 to 9 wt% (0.01 = 0.01/100.01 x 100 and 9 = 10/110 x 100).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (KR 20180032332 A) as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 106978005 A). It is noted that the disclosures of Zhang et al. are based on a machine translation of the reference which is included in this action.
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. disclose the transparent plastic sheet as set forth above. While Lee et al. disclose that the sheath layer (skin layer) comprises composite tungsten oxide (tungsten oxide) in amount of 0.00001 to 1 wt% as infrared blocking agent, Lee et al. do not disclose aluminum-doped tungsten oxide.
Zhang et al. disclose tungsten-containing metal oxide nanoparticles such as an aluminum-doped tungsten oxide having a particle size of 10 to 100 nm (see Abstract and paragraphs 0020, 0021, 0022, 0056). The tungsten-containing metal oxide nanoparticles have high visible light transmittance and selective absorption and blocking of the infrared spectrum of sunlight, making them ideal materials for making solar heat-insulating coatings and films (see paragraph 0072). Further, Zhang et al. disclose a solar heat-insulating film comprising 5 to 70 wt% of dispersion of tungsten-containing metal oxide nanoparticles, wherein content of tungsten-containing metal oxide nanoparticles in the dispersion is 1 to 50 wt% (see paragraphs 0098, 0099, 0102). Accordingly, the amount of tungsten-containing metal oxide in the solar heat-insulating film is 0.05 to 35 wt% (0.05 = 5 x 1/100 and 35 = 70 x 50/100). That is, amount of aluminum-doped tungsten oxide is 0.05 to 35 wt% in the solar heat-insulating film
In light of motivation for using 0.05 to 35 wt% of aluminum-doped tungsten oxide disclosed by Zhang et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to use 0.05 to 35 wt% of aluminum-doped tungsten oxide in the sheath layer (skin layer) of Lee et al. in order to provide high visible light transmittance and selective absorption and blocking of the infrared spectrum of sunlight, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Accordingly, Lee et al. in view of Zhang et al. disclose the skin layer comprising 0.00001 to 1 wt% of composite tungsten oxide (tungsten oxide) and 0.05 to 35 wt% of aluminum-doped tungsten oxide as infrared blocking agents. Therefore, the infrared blocking agent includes composite tungsten oxide (tungsten oxide) in amount of 0.00003 to 95 wt% (0.00003 = 0.00001/35.00001 x100 and 95 = 1/1.05 x 100) and aluminum-doped tungsten oxide in amount of 4.8 to 99.99 wt% (4.8 = 0.05/1.05 x 100 and 99.99 = 35/35.00001 x 100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787