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 .
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 and 24, 26-31 and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klem US 2009/0047487 in view of Weigel US 20120208033.
Regarding claim 18, Regarding claim 18, Klem teaches a film product configured to be applied to a transparent section of a building envelope to aid in protection of the building from bird strikes, the film product [0015] comprising: a film body with a planar extension (see fig 2), the film body having a plurality of UV bird protection sections (vertical stripes 16) that provides a UV bird protection function, each of the plurality of UV bird protection sections having an optical effect in a UV range [0017], the plurality of UV bird protection sections having a bird protection position in relation to the film body (see fig. 2). Klem does not teach an installation marking with an optical effect in the VIS range that is visible to humans, the installation marking being oriented to aid in indicating the bird protection position of the plurality of UV bird protection sections. However Weigel teaches an transparent film with printed indicia that can be used to display product ID and orientation/ alignment [0015] which would meet the limitation of an installation marking with an optical effect in the VIS range that is visible to humans, the installation marking being oriented to aid in indicating the bird protection position of the plurality of UV bird protection sections. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klem in view of Weigel to display product ID and facilitate installation.
Regarding claim 19, Klem in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 18, Weigel further teaches orientation and alignment [00115] which would meet the limitation of wherein the installation marking includes an orientation section that has an orientation and/or a position which correlates with an orientation of the plurality of UV bird protection sections.
Regarding claim 24, Kim in view of Weigel teaches the film product of claim 18, wherein Weigel further teaches the installation marking is part of the film body (printed see [0115]).
Regarding claim 26, Kim in view of Weigel teaches the film product of claim 18, wherein the installation marking is continuous and/or repetitive (graphics / printed indicia to display orientation or alignment information is considered to render obvious installation marking is continuous and/or repetitive see Weigel [0115]).
Regarding claim 27, Kim in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 19, Weigel further teaches wherein the orientation section has a visibility at the edge of a spectrum visible to humans towards the UV range (inks or printed indicial using techniques known in the art such as inkjet [0115] would encompass visibility at the edge of a spectrum visible to humans towards the UV range).
Regarding claim 28, Kim in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 19, Weigel further teaches the orientation section has a visibility in a range between about 5 nanometers and about 20 nanometers from the UV range (inks or printed indicial using techniques known in the art such as inkjet [0115] would encompass visibility in a range between about 5 nanometers and about 20 nanometers from the UV range).
Regarding claim 29, Kim in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 19, Weigel further teaches the installation marking includes an origin section configured to indicate an origin of the film product ([0115] product identification).
Regarding claim 30, Kim in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 29, Weigel further teaches therein the origin section is at least partly formed by the orientation section [0115].
Regarding claim 31, Kim in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 18,
Weigel further teaches wherein the installation marking is only visible from one side of the film body as this would be encompassed in the printing techniques disclosed by Weigel [0115].
Regarding claim 35, Klein teaches a method for applying a film product to a building envelope, the method comprising:; arranging the film product on the building envelope based at least in part on the determined bird protection position [0017] (vertical lines); and fixing the film product to the building envelope in the arranged position [0015].
Klein does not explicitly teach determining a bird protection position of a plurality of UV bird protection sections using an orientation section of the film product. However Weigel teaches forming orientation markings [0115] on clear films. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem in view of Weigel to facilitate easier installation.
Regarding claim 36, Klein and Weigel teach the method of claim 35, wherein the film product is fixed to the building envelope but do not teach the film is directly adjacent to second film product already applied to the building envelope. However one of ordinary skill in the art could easily conceive this as it is a practical way installing films over large surfaces such as buildings and examiner takes official notice of this.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem and Weigel to apply film directly adjacent to second film product already applied to the building envelope to apply a film to large surfaces.
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klem US 2009/0047487 in view of Weigel US 20120208033 and further in view of Kojima JP 2012-181221.
Regarding claim 20-22, Klem in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 19, but do not explicitly teach wherein the orientation section is aligned along the orientation of the plurality of UV bird protection sections, the orientation section at least partially corresponds to the bird protection section and the orientation section has an information section which provides visual information about the bird protection posion. However Kojima teaches an oriented film with orientation sections (alignment mark M see figs 1, 3 and 4) aligned along an orientation section which one of ordinary skill in the art could easily correspond various bird protection sections of Klem (vertical stripe 16) and also meets the limitation of the orientation section has information section which provides visual information about the bird protection position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem in view of Kojima to maintain proper alignment.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klem US 2009/0047487 in view of Weigel US 20120208033 and further in view of Bright US 2009/0109537.
Regarding claim 23, Kim in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 18 but do not teach wherein a surface side of the film body is provided with a cover film, in particular to cover an adhesive surface of the surface side, and wherein the installation marking is at least partially arranged in and/or on the cover film. However Bright teaches a surface side of the film body is provided with a cover film, in particular to cover an adhesive surface of the surface side, and wherein the installation marking is at least partially arranged in and/or on the cover film (([0047] skin layer on the film … displaying orientation information) as a matter of design choice (Bright teaches many possible implementations [0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem in view of Weigel in view of Bright as a matter of obvious design choice.
laim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klem US 2009/0047487 in view of Weigel US 20120208033 and further in view of Imakura JP 2020-49841.
Regarding claim 25, Klem in view of Weigel teach the film product of claim 24, but do not teach wherein the installation marking has a temporary effect in the VIS range. However Imakura teaches markings/printed pattern has a temporary effect in the VIS range to disappear over time (see page 2 2nd last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem in view of Weigel in view Imakura to provide a pattern there disappears over time.
Claim(s) 32-34 and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klem US 2009/0047487 in view of Weigel US 20120208033 and further in view of Reuter US 2008/0160241.
Regarding claim 32, Klem and Weigel teach the film product of claim 18, but do not teach wherein the bird protection position of the plurality UV bird protection sections includes a trimming allowance which is configured to be trimmed off during installation of the film product on the building envelope.
Reuter teaches a window film includes a trimming allowance which is configured to be trimmed off during installation of the film product on the building envelope to accommodate various window sizes (see fig. 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem in view of Weigel in view Reuter to accommodate various window sizes.
Regarding claim 33, Klein in view of Weigel and further in view of Reuter teach the film product of claim 32. The addition of the installation marking indicates the trimming allowance in a qualitative manner and/or a quantitative manner would be considered obvious over the Klein, Weigel and Reuter as Weigel teaches orientation and alignment markings and Reuter teaches a trimming allowance.
Regarding claim 34, Klein in view of Weigel and further in view of Reuter teach the film product of claim 32. The limitation of the installation marking is at least partly arranged in the trimming allowance would be considered obvious design choice over Klein as Weigel already teaches orientation and or alignment marks and printing across the surface.
Regarding claim 37-38, Klein and Weigel teach the method of claim 36, but do not teach further comprising arranging the film product such that an overlap portion of the film product overlaps the second film product and trimming off, from the film product, the overlap portion of the film product. Reuter teaches a an overlap and trimming method to fit the film to various window sizes (see fig. 5). While there is no specific teaches of overlapping the film product to a second film product and trimming off this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the film to large surfaces while allowing for install tolerances without gaps across multiple films .Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Klem in view of Weigel in view Reuter to accommodate various window sizes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHU VU whose telephone number is (571)272-1562. The examiner can normally be reached 11:00 - 7:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached at 571-272-9791. 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.
/PHU VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights