DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 3 & 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “angels” is misspelled. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-19 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.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 14-17, there is no reference angle/vector to the viewing angles.
Claims 11 and 20 correct this issue by stating that it is “relative to a normal vector of the reflective surface”.
Further regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether the maximum change is in relation to each other (measured values) or in relation to a reference point, such as a=0 and b=0.
Claim 11 does not correct this.
Claims 4-12 and 18-19 are rejected for failing to correct and being dependent on at least one indefinite claim.
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, 3-4, 9, 14-15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0322270 A1) (hereinafter “Amin”), optionally in view of Bellman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0376094 A1) (hereinafter “Bellman”) and Ge et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0081085 A1) (hereinafter “Ge”).
Regarding claims 1, 3-4, 9, 14-15, & 17, 20, Amin teaches an anti-reflective article comprising a glass substrate comprising first and second surfaces, wherein an anti-reflective coating is disposed on the first surface, wherein the CIE D65 angular color shift in reflectance over a range from 0 to 60 degrees in relation to normal incidence of about 5 or less, 2 or less or even 1 or less [0078-0080], an a* value in reflectance over the range of about 0 to about 60° under illuminant D65 of about -5 to about 2, such as -4.5 to 1.5, -3 to 0, -2.5 to 0.25, and an average b* in reflectance over the range of about 0 to about 60° under illuminant D65 of about -7 to about -1.5, such as -5 to 1, -5 to 0, -4 to 1, or -4 to 0 [0085 & 0088], giving a calculated maximum change in a* of not greater than about 7, such as about 2.75, and a calculated maximum change in b* of no greater than about 5.5, such as 4, and a calculated ΔE of no greater than about 8.9, such as 4.85, and an average photopic/luminous light reflectance of 1% or less over the optical wavelength regime over an angle range from 0 to 60 degrees [0008, 0078-0091], wherein the antireflective coating further comprises a low refractive index third/additional (buffer) layer having a refractive index between about 1.3 to about 1.7 is formed between the glass substrate having a refractive index of about 1.45 to about 1.55 and the remaining stack of alternating/periodic antireflection layers of a low refractive index of about 1.3 to about 1.7 and a high refractive index of about 1.6 to about 2.5 [-0121-0122], wherein an example low refractive index layer is SiO2 having a thickness of 26 nm and a refractive index of 1.4826 and the substrate being aluminosilicate glass having a refractive index of 1.51005 [0153, Table 8], such that the refractive index is within 1.82% of that of the substrate and an overall anti-reflection coating thickness is 800 nm or less and includes an interval of about 50 to about 300 nm [0127], and while the given example comprising the low refractive index comprises a total thickness of 464 nm, if the third/buffer layer were added to the nearly identical antireflection coating of Example 4, it would have given a total thickness of about 304 nm, wherein although Amin’s ranges does not anticipate Applicant’s, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I.
In the event that the disclosed examples are not considered to simultaneously disclose the buffer layer and overall antireflection coating thickness range as claimed: Bellman discloses a very similar invention to that of Amin, wherein Bellman teaches a transparent cover that exhibits a low, non-distracting color shift when viewed at different incident angles for a display used in electronics and/or architecture and/or vehicles [0002-0003, 0016, 0052, 0134], the cover comprising an antireflection coating stack of sub-layers comprising low refractive index (low RI) layers of 1.3 to 1.7 and high refractive index (high RI) layers of 1.6 to 2.5 [0109-0112], wherein the color shift (ΔE) in reflectance of the antireflection coating stack as measured by a (standard) D65 illuminant in the range of 0 degrees to 60 degrees is the square root of the summed squares of the differences of a* and b* as determined by CIE colorimetry system [0008, 0056-0057], wherein a low refractive index third/buffer layer comprises an exemplary range of 1.4 to 1.6 and an exemplary value of 1.46 [0112], which gives a calculated exemplary range of about 0.7% to about 5.8%.
AND
Ge teaches scratch-resistance and strength of antireflection coatings can be enhanced by limiting the coating to less than 300 nm [0050, 0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to simultaneously provide a low angular color shifting antireflection coating with a third/buffer layer between the stack of alternating/periodic high RI/low RI layers and the glass substrate and a thickness within the claimed range.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin, optionally in view of Bellman and Ge, as applied to claim 1 above, (further) in view of Mattlet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0208131 A1) (hereinafter “Mattlet”) and Fisher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0008377 A1) (hereinafter “Fisher”).
Regarding claim 9, Amin teaches the article to be used as a cover article for interior input/display/other function in automotive applications [0003], wherein the glass may be planar or curved or otherwise shaped/sculpted [0098].
However, a non-planar base having the glass substrate cold-formed thereon is not taught.
Further regarding claim 21, Mattelet teaches a vehicle comprising a console body comprising a complexly curved upper (support) surface, wherein at least one trim element made of a glass sheet is mounted, wherein the glass sheet is bended (cold-formed) or thermoformed (heat-formed) to adapt with the shape of the upper surface [0019].
However, cold-forming is not motivated.
Fisher teaches a curved glass product, for automotive and/or architectural surfaces [0003-0004, 0006, 0020, 0088], specifically as an interior dashboard, center console, door panel, instrument panel, display panel, pillar, etc. [0089], wherein the curved glass substrate having an anti-reflection coating thereon [0075] is preferably shaped via cold forming over thermoforming to minimize optical distortions/defects [0004, 0007, 0021, 0086-0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to cold-form the coated glass sheet to correspond to a non-planar support surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of vehicle interior glass sheets to obtain application methods of making curved/non-planar glass sheets into the desired feature [Mattlet], while minimizing optical distortion/defects [Fischer].
Claims 10-13 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amin, optionally in view of Bellman and Ge, as applied to claim 1 above, (further) in view of Fujii et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0129806 A1) (hereinafter “Fujii K 2017”).
Regarding claims 10-13 and 20, Amin teaches an anti-reflective article comprising a glass substrate comprising first and second surfaces, wherein an anti-reflective coating is disposed on the first surface, wherein the CIE D65 angular color shift in reflectance over a range from 0 to 60 degrees in relation to normal incidence of about 5 or less, 2 or less or even 1 or less [0078-0080].
However, Amin does not teach the surface of the glass having the antireflective coating disposed thereon to be an anti-glare surface.
Fujii K 2017 teaches a cover glass for use with electronics and/or on/in vehicles [0002] comprising an anti-glare treatment on at least one surface (All Figs. [10E]) via an etching treatment [0029, 0045-0046, 0049, 0081-0082] followed by an antireflection coating (All Figs. [20]) comprising a stack of alternating layers of low and high refractive indices, such as niobium oxide and silicon oxide [0050-0056, 0081-0082], wherein the combined AG surface and AR coating results in a difference in chomaticity between any two points on the surface is less than 4, preferably less than 2 (imperceptible to the human eye/substantially the same) [0011-0013, 0024-0027].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an AG surface having the antireflection coating stack located thereabove such that areal ΔE uniformity across the glass substrate is within or near the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have been motivated to reduce reflection at the surface of the display and color tone unevenness [0002, 0004, 0007-0009].
Further regarding claim 12, while an ambient contrast ratio and ghost image reduction are not explicitly taught by Fujii K 2017, the combined AG surface and AR coating of Amin(/Bellman/Ge)/Fujii K that reduces reflections at the surface and provides areal color tone uniformity should inherently meet or would have been obvious and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to measure and pursue the properties/values as claimed.
Claims 1-8 & 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0129806 A1) (hereinafter “Fujii K 2017”), as evidenced by Abrisa (AGC DragontailTM Chemically Strengthened Glass) (hereinafter “Abrisa”) and as evidenced by or in view of Su et al. (CN 105585253 A) (hereinafter “Su”), (further) in view of Bellman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0376094 A1) (hereinafter “Bellman”) and Fujii (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0038995 A1) (hereinafter “Fujii K 2018”);
wherein claims 2 and 16 are evidenced by or further in view of Tachibana et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0383971 A1) (hereinafter “Tachibana”);
wherein claim 7 is optionally further in view of Kanatani et al. (WO 2019/031325 A1) (hereinafter “Kanatani”); and
wherein claim 8 is optionally further in view of Geisler et al. (Meeting the demands of modern large area glass coating…) (hereinafter “Geisler”).
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 10-11, 13-15, and 17-20, Fujii K 2017 teaches a cover glass for use with electronics and/or on/in vehicles with diminished reflection of external daylight/sunlight [0002] comprising an anti-glare treatment on at least one surface (All Figs. [10E]) via an etching treatment [0029, 0045-0046, 0049, 0081-0082] followed by the disposal by sputtering of an antireflection coating (All Figs. [20]) comprising a stack of preferably two to four alternating high/low refractive index laminated layers of preferably silicon dioxide (SiO2) as the low-refractive index layer(s) and niobium oxide (Nb2O5) as the high refractive index layer(s) [0051-0053, 0055, 0081-0082] and having a thickness of 100 nm to 300 nm at the most [0113], wherein the combined AG surface and AR coating results in a luminous/photopic reflectance of less than 2% and a difference in chomaticity (ΔE and thus as a result effective variable also Δa* and Δb* between maximum and minimum observed/measured values) measured under D65 illuminant [0073, 0137] between any two points on the surface is less than 4, more preferably less than 2, so as to be imperceptible to the human eye/substantially the same [0011-0013, 0024-0027], wherein an exemplary embodiments comprise chemically strengthened aluminosilicate DragontailTM glass [0129], as evidenced by Abrisa to comprise a refractive index of 1.51, that is provided with an antiglare surface followed by the sputtering of an antireflection coating structure comprising four layers of Nb2O5/SiO2/ Nb2O5/SiO2, the first layer corresponding to thickness values 13 nm, 15 nm, and 11 nm, the second layer corresponding to thickness values of 35 nm, 30 nm, and 40 nm, the third layer corresponding to thickness values of 115 nm, 110 nm, and 120 nm, and the second layer corresponding to thickness values of 80 nm, 90 nm, and 95 nm, for calculated corresponding total thickness values of 243 nm, 245 nm, and 266 nm [0132-0136, 0154-0158, 0164-0168], wherein Su evidences/further demonstrates a glass article comprising a first surface and a second surface opposite the first surface, wherein the first surface comprises an anti-reflection film/coating comprising an improved film/coating [0009-0010] of four layers of Nb2O5/SiO2/ Nb2O5/SiO2 stacked with corresponding thickness ranges 5-30 nm/20-60 nm/20-130 nm/70-150 nm, respectively, wherein the average reflected visible light reflectance is less than 5% and the characteristic neutral reflection color at viewing angles of 0 to 180 degrees relative to normal incidence comprises an a* value of between -3 and 1 and a b* value of between -3 and 1 [0014-0023, 0036], such that a calculated maximum change of each a* and b* would be not greater than 4 and a calculated angular color shift ΔE would be not greater than 5.66.
However, Fujii K 2017 (as evidenced by or in view of Su) does not teach the (or does not motivate) a maximum (color) shift/change of a*, b*, and ΔE values under a D65 illuminant and to be an angular color shift/change provided when viewed/observed over an angle range of 10° to 60° with respect to normal incidence or a buffer layer comprising a refractive index within 5% of that of the substrate.
Bellman teaches a transparent cover that exhibits a low, non-distracting color shift when viewed at different incident angles for a display used in electronics and/or architecture and/or vehicles [0002-0003, 0016, 0052, 0134], the cover comprising an antireflection coating stack of first and second sub-layers comprising first low refractive index (low RI) layers of 1.3 to 1.7 and second high refractive index (high RI) layers of 1.6 to 2.5 [0109-0112], wherein the color shift (ΔE) of 2 or less in reflectance of the antireflection coating stack as measured by a D65 illuminant (natural daylight) in the range of 5° to 60° is the square root of the summed squares of the differences of a* and b* as determined by CIE colorimetry system (such that Δa* and Δb* between maximum and minimum observed/measured values would be a result effective variable within or near a similar range) [0008, 0056-0057], such that variations of reflected color of ±1.5 or ±0.4 under F2 illumination are possible [0131, 0167-0169], wherein a low refractive index third/buffer sub-layer can be provided between the remaining stack of alternating sub-layers and the substrate (i.e. Lthird sub-layer/H/L/H/L), wherein a refractive index of SiO2 is evidenced to be about 1.46 [Table 1] and a refractive index of Nb2O5 is evidenced to be about 2.3 [Table 7].
However, the buffer layer as claimed is not motivated.
Fujii K 2018 teaches transparent base with a low reflection film, wherein the base is preferably chemically tempered/strengthened and therefore contains sodium [0034-0036, 0043-0044] and also subject to an antiglare treatment [0043], and wherein a four-layer examples comprising Nb2O5/SiO2/ Nb2O5/SiO2 with corresponding thicknesses identical or substantially identical to those of Fujii K 2017 may additionally comprise an additional layer of SiO2 inserted between the stack and the substrate in order to prevent diffusion of Na (sodium ions) from the glass base, within a range that would not impair optical characteristics [0068].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a maximum angular color shift within the claimed range of a*, b*, and/or ΔE of less than 5, or preferably less than 2, and a buffer layer having a refractive index within 5% of that of the substrate as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide antireflection coated glass for transportation displays with color exhibited/perceived in reflection does not appreciably change as viewing angle is changed [Bellman; 0003-0004], wherein a user sees a noticeable difference when a color shift is about 2 or greater [Bellman; 0056] such that the article should appear colorless (i.e. neutral) [0055-0056], wherein D65 illuminant would be the most desirably used/tested with regard to external/natural light [Bellman; 0057], and wherein an extra low-refractive index SiO2 layer would be inserted to prevent diffusion of Na ions from the glass base in a thickness range not greater than that desired by Fujii K 2017 (300 nm) and within in a range that would not impair optical characteristics [Fujii K 2018; 0068].
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Tachibana evidences/teaches an display device such as a smartphone or instrument panel of a vehicle [0002] antireflection film, similar to Fujii K 2017/2018, comprising four to eight alternating layers of high reflective index Nb2O5 and low refractive index SiO2 [0040-0041], wherein Nb2O5 is interchangeable with TiO2 [0043], and wherein an overall film thickness is more preferably 200 to 300 nm, and most preferably 220 to 280 nm [0042], wherein exemplary the four layer stack Nb2O5/SiO2/ Nb2O5/SiO2 with corresponding thicknesses identical or substantially identical to those of Fujii K 2017/2018 comprises a b* value in reflection under D65 illuminant [0056] of about 1.40 [Table 1, Ex #1], wherein a b* value (and a* value) should be preferably within a range of -2<b*<2 for a neutral color in reflection [0129-0131].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide a reflected b* value for a similar/identical stacked antireflection coating within or obviously optimizable to within/near the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a more neutral reflected color tone [0129-0131].
Regarding claim 7, while the examples of Fujii K 2017as recited above provide a workable range for each of the layers of the claimed coating within the broader language as disclosed by Su, in the event that the thickness ranges are not sufficiently specific: Kanatani teaches antireflective films for display screens that prevent reflections of external light, wherein the coating is beneficial for simultaneously lowering luminous reflectance and suppressions coloration and provides a neutral reflective hue [0010], wherein sputtering the layers can reduce variations in reflected color [0025], wherein a four layer stack comprising Nb2O5/SiO2/ Nb2O5/SiO2 has corresponding physical thickness ranges of 12.0-14.1 nm/31.5-40.4 nm/112.0-122.2 nm/83.6-92.5 nm, respectively [0028, 0032, 0036, 0039], wherein an exemplary embodiment (Ex #1) comprises corresponding physical thickness values of 12 nm/40 nm/120 nm/84 nm, respectively [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide thickness values within the claimed range with some slight optimizations for the added buffer layer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated seek increasingly optimized ranges that would provide both a luminous/photopic reflectance and suppressed reflected color/more neutral hue [0010].
Regarding claim 12, while an ambient contrast ratio and ghost image reduction are not explicitly taught by Fujii K 2017, the combined AG surface and AR coating of Fujii K(/Su)/Bellman/Fujii 2018 that reduces reflections at the surface and provides areal color tone uniformity should inherently meet or would have been obvious and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to measure and pursue the properties/values as claimed.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii K 2017, optionally in view of Bellman and Fujii K 2018, optionally Su and/or Kanatani as applied to claim 1 above, (further) in view of Mattlet et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0208131 A1) (hereinafter “Mattlet”) and Fisher et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0008377 A1) (hereinafter “Fisher”).
Regarding claim 9, Bellman teaches the substrate may be curved or otherwise shaped or sculpted [0086], but does not teach a motivation or a non-planar base having the glass substrate cold-formed thereon is not taught.
However, a non-planar base having the glass substrate cold-formed thereon is not taught.
Further regarding claim 21, Mattelet teaches a vehicle comprising a console body comprising a complexly curved upper (support) surface, wherein at least one trim element made of a glass sheet is mounted, wherein the glass sheet is bended (cold-formed) or thermoformed (heat-formed) to adapt with the shape of the upper surface [0019].
However, cold-forming is not motivated.
Fisher teaches a curved glass product, for automotive and/or architectural surfaces [0003-0004, 0006, 0020, 0088], specifically as an interior dashboard, center console, door panel, instrument panel, display panel, pillar, etc. [0089], wherein the curved glass substrate having an anti-reflection coating thereon [0075] is preferably shaped via cold forming over thermoforming to minimize optical distortions/defects [0004, 0007, 0021, 0086-0087].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to cold-form the coated glass sheet to correspond to a non-planar support surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art of vehicle interior glass sheets to obtain application methods of making curved/non-planar glass sheets into the desired feature [Mattlet], while minimizing optical distortion/defects [Fischer].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 July 25th, 2026
Prosecution Insights