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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 15, 19-20, 23, 26, 28-33 amended
Claims 4-5, 7-10, 12-13, 16, 18, 24-25 and 27 canceled
Claims 1-3, 6, 11, 14-15, 17, 19-23, 26 and 28-33 pending
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 15, 21, 28 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 15 and 28, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 21 state “meaning that the shear modulus is in the range…” in page 4, line 8.
However, it is not clear what is meant but “meaning that”.
For the sake of expedite prosecution the examiner interprets this as “wherein the shear…”
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 14-15, 17, 19-22, 26, 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condo (PG Pub 2010/0316852 A1) in view of Fedorovskaya (PG Pub 2009/0081356 A1).
Consider Claims 1-3 and 6, Condo teaches the process of forming solar control film/composite having visible light transmitting and infrared reflective, as a dichroic filter, on the flexible support (abstract), where the film/composite (200) include flexible support (102), metal layer (108), between two seed layers/dielectric metal oxide layers (106, 112) (figure 2), where seed layer include sputtered metal oxide such as zinc oxide, aluminum oxide [0043], and where the flexible support (102) is a transparent material [0037]. Condo teaches the process of sputtering using sputtering system (318, 316) (figure 3, [0039]), using inert gas and water vapor [0039]. With processing pressure of 3×10-4 Torr (4×10-4 mbar) [0053]. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
Condo does not teach the amount of water vapor added into the sputtering chamber.
However, Fedorovskaya is in the prior art of depositing thin film on an OLED devices (abstract), having an optical transparency [0141], using sputtering process [0134], teaches the process of using a mixture of inert gas and water vapor where the flow of the water vapor is controlled by adjusting the bubbling rate of the inert gas that passes through the pure water in the bubble and the controlled temperature [0171]. Where for example the flow rate of the water vaper was controlled to 15 sccm (0.016 mbar at 1 atmosphere) [0172].
Leading to water vapor with partial pressure of about 0.000016 mbar or a partial pressure of 1.6×10-5 mbar, with 4% of the total molar flow. 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). (MPEP 2144.05).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Condo with Fedorovskaya to use and supply water vapor in the claimed range, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Consider Claim 14, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the metal layer include silver, copper, nickel, chrome, gold, platinum or palladium and alloys thereof (Condo, [0044]).
Consider Claim 15, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the metal layer with thickness 5 to 50 nm (Condo, [0044]), where to some degree the upper and the lower portion of the metal layer are the intermediate layer, which include silver, copper, nickel, chrome, gold, platinum or palladium and alloys thereof (Condo, [0044]).
Consider Claim 17, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the dielectric layer/seed layer made from alumina, zinc oxide (Condo, [0043]).
Consider Claims 19-20, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the process for continuous glass articles, where the articles is flexible (Condo, [0029] and abstract), where the articles/laminated articles is used in sunroof, vehicle (Condo, [0048]).
Consider Claims 21-22, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the use of pressure sensitive adhesive to adhere the element to the films (Condo, [0047]).
The combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) does not teaches the shear modulus at room temperature typical of a flexible material, is in the range of at most 0.5 GPa and at least 0.1 MPa
However, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “list of claimed steps of forming the article”. Since the “shear modulus is in the range of at most 0.5 GPa and at least 0.1 MPa” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “list of claimed steps of forming the article”, and the combination of the Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Condo (with Fedorovskaya) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “shear modulus is in the range of at most 0.5 GPa and at least 0.1 MPa” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Consider Claim 26, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the use of pressure sensitive adhesive to adhere the element to the films (Condo, [0047]), where the flexible support is glass (Condo, [0029] and abstract).
Consider Claims 28-33, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the previously taught in claim 1 above.
The combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) does not teaches the claimed results in claims 28-33.
However, However, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches each and every process step and limitation of the applicant’s claims, including the “list of claimed steps of forming the article”. Since the “results that are claimed in claims 28-33” by the applicant’s claimed process is simply a function of the “list of claimed steps of forming the article”, and the combination of the Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the claimed process steps. The process of the combination of the Condo (with Fedorovskaya) would have naturally flow or inherently produced “results that are claimed in claims 28-33” unless essential process steps and/or limitations are missing from the applicant’s claims.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condo (PG Pub 2010/0316852 A1) in view of Fedorovskaya (PG Pub 2009/0081356 A1) and in further view of Shuto (PG Pub 2019/0127845 A1).
Consider Claim 11, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the process for continuous glass articles, where the articles is flexible (Condo, [0029] and abstract), using a processing system having unwinding reel (302) and winding reel (304) (Condo, figure 3).
The combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) does not teach the unwinding real and the winding reel in chambers.
However, Shuto is in the process of forming multilayer optical film (abstract), using roll to roll sputtering system ([0042], figure 2), teaches the unwinding real (211) in chamber (210) and the winding reel (291) in chamber (290) where the sputtering chamber (220) in between (figure 2, [0043]-[0044]).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Condo (with Fedorovskaya) with Shuto to use Shuto’s sputtering system, to provide with a system having a controlled vacuum within various chambers [0044].
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Condo (PG Pub 2010/0316852 A1) in view of Fedorovskaya (PG Pub 2009/0081356 A1) and in further view of Armbrust (US Pat. 6,713,559 B1).
Consider Claim 23, the combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) teaches the process for depositing protective film (116) (Condo, figure 2) from acrylate material (Condo, [0037]).
The combined Condo (with Fedorovskaya) does not teach the deposition of protective film/acrylate material using sol-gel.
However, Armbrust is in the prior art of coating acrylate (abstract) teaches coating acrylate using sol-gel coating process (abstract).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Condo (with Fedorovskaya) with Armbrust to coating protective film made of acrylate material using sol-gel process, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights