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, see the remarks, filed 02/12/2026, with respect to the Arn reference and the amended limitations of claims 1-3, 6-7, & 9-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made with the support of the Klem reference cited herein.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, & 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0307116 A1; herein Arn in view of Klem, JR., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0047487 A1; herein Klem.
Re claim 1, Arn discloses a film product for application to a building envelope (abstract, fig. 2-3, and para 61, wherein the active pattern is applied to a plane of a pane via a film) for protection against bird strikes (para 7, the patterns are employed to protect the pane and bird from striking the surface), having a film body (para 57 & 61, wherein the patterns are applied via a film being applied to the pane), with a planar extension (fig. 2, along each surface the individual pattern is applied), wherein the film body has at least one UV bird protection section (22; the second quality/pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect (para 24, the second pattern/quality elements have an optical effect) in the UV range (para 23-24, 26, & 29, wherein the light is influenced to a specific wavelength of light within the UV range) as a UV bird protection function (para 49, the pattern functions with the first to protect from bird strikes) and at least one VIS bird protection section (21; the first quality pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect in the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans (para 23 & 28, the thickness of the pattern is selected such that a specific amount of UV light is either reflected or absorbed and the spectrum being visible to humans) as a VIS bird protection function (para 49, in combination with the second quality/pattern the protection from bird strikes are improved).
Arn fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged directly adjacent to each other. However, Klem discloses at least one UV bird protection section (para 19, the patterns invisible to the human eye) and at least one VIS bird protection section (para 18, the uniform pattern visible to the human eye) being arranged directly adjacent to each other (fig. 4 and para 15-16 & 18-19, wherein both patterns are made of film and placed adjacent to each other on the outer surface of the pane).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged directly adjacent to each other however, Klem discloses such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the adjacent films taught by Klem to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating a thinner, more compact, easy to apply bird strike deterrent. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 2, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein the at least one VIS bird protection section in the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans is at least partially transparent (para 26 & 28, wherein the pattern/quality appears transparent).
Re claim 3, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein the at least one VIS bird protection section only has the optical effect in a VIS sub-range (VIST) of the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans (para 28, the pattern/quality is visible to humans and transparent within the UV range is between 390 and 420 nm).
Re claim 6, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses the at least one UV bird protection section is at least partially arranged in a different film layer of the film body than the at least one VIS bird protection section (fig. 1-2, on another layer of the film).
Re claim 7, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged in relation to each other without overlapping (fig. 2-3).
Re claim 9, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein the at least one VIS bird protection section is formed in the blue VIS sub-range (VIST) (para 29, wherein the UV range is between 390 and 500 nm) or in the red VIS sub-range (VIST) (para 29, wherein the UV range is between 620 and 750).
Re claim 10, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein the at least one UV bird protection section has an optical effect in the UVA sub-range (UVAT) of the UV range (UV) (para 29, wherein the second pattern/quailty is within the wavelength range of 315-400 nm).
Re claim 11, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein at least two UV bird protection sections are formed with a defined geometric shape to create and support the bird protection function (fig. 2-3 and para 22 & 49, wherein the patterns forms defined geometric shapes such as circles or squares for supporting the bird protection features/effect).
Re claim 12, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 1, Arn further discloses wherein the film body has at least one marking in the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans (para 28, wherein the first pattern elements are visible to humans).
Re claim 13, Arn discloses a façade element for a partial section of a building envelope (fig. 2, abstract, and para 1 & 61, via both planes of the pane), comprising a main façade body (21/22; the first and second patterns, fig. 2-3) comprising a film product (abstract, fig. 2-3, and para 61, wherein the active pattern is applied to a plane of a pane via a film) with the features of a film body (para 57 & 61, wherein the patterns are applied via a film being applied to the pane), with a planar extension (fig. 2, along each surface the individual pattern is applied), wherein the film body has at least one UV bird protection section (22; the second quality/pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect (para 24, the second pattern/quality elements have an optical effect) in the UV range (para 23-24, 26, & 29, wherein the light is influenced to a specific wavelength of light within the UV range) as a UV bird protection function (para 49, the pattern functions with the first to protect from bird strikes) and at least one VIS bird protection section (21; the first quality pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect in the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans (para 23 & 28, the thickness of the pattern is selected such that a specific amount of UV light is either reflected or absorbed and the spectrum being visible to humans) as a VIS bird protection function (para 49, in combination with the second quality/pattern the protection from bird strikes are improved).
Arn fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged directly adjacent to each other. However, Klem discloses at least one UV bird protection section (para 19, the patterns invisible to the human eye) and at least one VIS bird protection section (para 18, the uniform pattern visible to the human eye) being arranged directly adjacent to each other (fig. 4 and para 15-16 & 18-19, wherein both patterns are made of film and placed adjacent to each other on the outer surface of the pane).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged directly adjacent to each other however, Klem discloses such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the adjacent films taught by Klem to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating a thinner, more compact, easy to apply bird strike deterrent. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 14, Arn discloses a manufacturing method for manufacturing a film product for an application to a building envelope for protection against bird strikes with the features of a film body (para 57 & 61, wherein the patterns are applied via a film being applied to the pane), with a planar extension (fig. 2, along each surface the individual pattern is applied), wherein the film body has at least one UV bird protection section (22; the second quality/pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect (para 24, the second pattern/quality elements have an optical effect) in the UV range (para 23-24, 26, & 29, wherein the light is influenced to a specific wavelength of light within the UV range) as a UV bird protection function (para 49, the pattern functions with the first to protect from bird strikes) and at least one VIS bird protection section (21; the first quality pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect in the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans (para 23 & 28, the thickness of the pattern is selected such that a specific amount of UV light is either reflected or absorbed and the spectrum being visible to humans) as a VIS bird protection function (para 49, in combination with the second quality/pattern the protection from bird strikes are improved), comprising the following step:
- forming a film base body (para 57 & 61, the films applied to the first and second patterns) with at least one functional layer (again see fig. 2-3 and para 61), having at least one UV bird protection section (22; the second quality/pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect (para 24, the second pattern/quality elements have an optical effect) in the UV range (para 23-24, 26, & 29, wherein the light is influenced to a specific wavelength of light within the UV range) as a UV bird protection function (para 49, the pattern functions with the first to protect from bird strikes) and at least one VIS bird protection section (21; the first quality pattern, fig. 2-3) with an optical effect in the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans (para 23 & 28, the thickness of the pattern is selected such that a specific amount of UV light is either reflected or absorbed and the spectrum being visible to humans) as a VIS bird protection function (para 49, in combination with the second quality/pattern the protection from bird strikes are improved).
Arn fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged directly adjacent to each other. However, Klem discloses at least one UV bird protection section (para 19, the patterns invisible to the human eye) and at least one VIS bird protection section (para 18, the uniform pattern visible to the human eye) being arranged directly adjacent to each other (fig. 4 and para 15-16 & 18-19, wherein both patterns are made of film and placed adjacent to each other on the outer surface of the pane).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the at least one UV bird protection section and the at least one VIS bird protection section are arranged directly adjacent to each other however, Klem discloses such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the adjacent films taught by Klem to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating a thinner, more compact, easy to apply bird strike deterrent. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 15, the combination of Arn and Klem discloses the invention of claim 2, Arn further discloses wherein the at least one VIS bird protection section the VIS range (VIS) visible to humans has a transmittance of at least 50% (para 28, at most 20% of the light is absorbed or reflected thus the remainder is transmitted).
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights