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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification contains language the same as, or similar to, claim language which is subject to a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection as discussed below.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 12. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-24 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.
Claims 1 and 14-15 recite: “the cover article has at least two non-overlapping wavelength bands, each band having a bandwidth from 5 nm to 200 nm and a central wavelength within a spectrum from 400 nm to 1200 nm”. It is unclear what this limitation means. If the two bands are non-overlapping, how can they have the same bandwidth? Further, if the band ranges from 5 nm to 200 nm, how does the band have a wavelength outside of the bandwidth? For purposes of examination, it is presumed that ‘non-overlapping wavelength’ means the central wavelength of the bands do not overlap.
Claims 1 and 14-15 recite: “for each of the at least two non-overlapping wavelength bands, (a) an average two-surface transmittance of greater than 70% within a range of incident angles…and (b) an average two-surface transmittance of less than 50%...” This limitation is indefinite. It is unclear over what wavelengths the transmittance is being measured, i.e., is it the bandwidth, the central wavelength, or a broader spectrum? For purposes of examination, the former is presumed.
Claim 2 recites: “each band having a bandwidth from 5 nm to 200 nm within a spectrum from 400 nm to 1200 nm”. This limitation is indefinite as the bandwidth 5 nm to 200 nm is not within 400 nm to 1200 nm. For purposes of examination, it is presumed the central wavelength is within 400 nm to 1200 nm.
Claims 12 and 13 recite similar language to claim 1 with respect to “an average two-surface transmittance” and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 14 recites: “wherein the outer layered film comprises a plurality of periods (N), each period (N) comprising a low refractive index layer and a high refractive index layer, and the plurality of periods (N) is from 5 to 100 periods”. This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is in addition to, or further describes, the previously recited limitation “wherein the outer layered film comprises a plurality of alternative high refractive index and low refractive index layers”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is presumed to further describe the previous limitation.
Claim 16 recites: “the cover article has a transmission wavelength band having a bandwidth from 5 nm to 200 nm and a central wavelength of from 510 nm to 590 nm. This limitation is indefinite. If the band has a bandwidth from 5 nm to 200 nm, how does it also have a wavelength outside of the bandwidth? For purposes of examination, it is presumed that ‘non-overlapping wavelength’ means the central wavelength of the bands do not overlap.
Claim 16 recites: “for the transmission wavelength band, (a) an average two-surface transmittance of greater than 70% within a range of incident angles…and (b) an average two-surface transmittance of less than 50%...” This limitation is indefinite. It is unclear over what wavelengths the transmittance is being measured, i.e., is it the bandwidth, the central wavelength, or a broader spectrum? For purposes of examination, the former is presumed.
Claims 17-19 recite similar language to claim 1 with respect to “an average two-surface transmittance” and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claim 24 recites similar language to claim 14 with respect to “wherein the outer layered film comprises a plurality of periods (N)” and is indefinite for the same reasons.
Dependent claims not addressed are indefinite by virtue of dependence from an indefinite claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-24 appear to be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art teaches a cover article having an outer layered film comprising alternating high and low refractive index layers and two non-overlapping transmission bands (see, e.g. Gonta (US 2024/0377556), Hendrix (US 2014/0014838), and Lu (CN 113900171)). However, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the claimed cover article having the claimed wavelength bands and the claimed two-surface transmittance over the claimed incidence angles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOBEI WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5705. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/XIAOBEI WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784 /X.W/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights