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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/03/2024, 02/12/2025 and 08/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed first dielectric stack, second dielectric stack optical adjacent to the first dielectric stack, alternating low and high refractive index layers, layers having an odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness, layers having and odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness, layers having an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness and the same substrate/separate substrate laminated in arrangements recited in the claims must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1 and 18 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 claim 1, if the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant application claim 1 recites “at least as wide as the reflection band”. However, width of a reflection band depends on how the band edges are determined: Is it full width at half maximum? Width above 30% reflectance? Width above 50%? At normal incidence? At 45 degrees? Average over polarization? The claim does not say. Accordingly the meets and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claims 2-25 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Regarding claims 18, if the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim so as to understand how to avoid infringement, a rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See Morton Int’l, Inc. v. Cardinal Chem. Co., 5 F.3d 1464, 1470, 28 USPQ2d 1190, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In the instant application claim 18 recites, “the second dielectric reflector stack comprises from 5 to 11 layers, and wherein the single layer that is an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness is one of three middle layers”, because the claimed range includes even numbers of layers, it is unclear how “three middle layers” are determined for even stacks. Thus, the scope is unclear.
Claims 1, 15-19 and 25 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, 15, 16, 17, 18 19, and 25 recites the limitation " the first dielectric reflector stack". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the first dielectric reflector stack” will be read as “the first dielectric stack”.
Claims 2-25 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claims 15, 16 and 18 recites the limitation " the broad-band reflecting film". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the broad-band reflecting film” will be read as “the solar-control film”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation " the second dielectric reflector stack". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the second dielectric reflector stack” will be read as “the second dielectric stack”.
The above rejected 112 claims will be interpreted, as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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, 6, 8-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317, of record) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Ploke discloses a solar-control film, comprising:
a first dielectric stack (Col. 4, line 30 discloses: S1, interference layer, see Figure 1A) having:
i. alternating layers of high and low refractive index materials of a first equal optical thickness (Claim 1 discloses: alternating high and low refractive indices for interference layer S1; Col. 5, lines 35-40 teach: optical thickness of about one quarter or three quarters); and
ii. at least one layer that is an odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness (Examiner notes that this is an general quarter wave stack, as 1 is an odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness; ¼ wave stack thickness),
wherein the first dielectric stack has a reflection band centered at a wavelength from 800 nm to 1500 nm (Col. 6, lines 9-10 discloses: band with wavelength range of 0.7 µ -1.9µ→ 700 nm to 1900 nm, considered centered at 1300 nm; which is inside the claimed range); and
b. a second dielectric stack (Claim 1 discloses: S2, interference layer), optically adjacent the first dielectric stack (Claim 1 discloses: S1 and S2 in series), having:
i. alternating layers of high and low refractive index materials of a second equal optical thickness (Claim 1 discloses: alternating high and low refractive indices for interference layer S2; Col. 5, lines 35-40 teach: optical thickness of about one quarter or three quarters); and
causing a double peak reflection band that is at least as wide as the reflection band of the first dielectric reflector stack.
Ploke fails to disclose ii. at least a single layer that is an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness, and a double peak reflection band that exhibits both a first peak and a second peak at a wavelength range from 800nm to 1500nm. Ploke and Cushing are related because both disclose optical filters.
Cushing teaches
ii. at least a single layer that is an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness (Cushing: Col. 6, line 26 discloses: HLH LL HLH layer; Examiner notes that this is an alternating H/L stack with a middle even multiple LL layer; Examiner notes that 2 is the even multiple).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Cushing and provide at least a single layer that is an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness. Doing so would allow for improved infrared reflection performance across a wider wavelength range, thereby improving overall performance of the solar control film.
The modified Ploke fails to disclose a double peak reflection band that exhibits both a first peak and a second peak at a wavelength range from 800nm to 1500nm. However, optimizing peaks in reflection bands is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Ploke depicts, in Figure 2, a double peak reflection band that exhibits both a first peak and a second peak at around the wavelength range from 800nm to 1500nm; Cushing teaches that the spectral response of quarter-wave H/L multilayer stacks is determined by the optical thickness and identifies said thickness as a variable which achieves a recognized result, and would have predictably improved the film by broadening and positioning the infrared reflection response in the desired solar controlled wavelength. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to adjust the double peak reflection band so that it exhibits both a first peak and a second peak at a wavelength range from 800nm to 1500nm since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein a peak of the reflection band of the first dielectric stack falls between the first peak and the second peak of the reflection band of the second dielectric stack (Figure 2 of Ploke depicts: the reflection band peaks of interest for S1, at 01 and for S2 at 01 and 02; thus, a peak , 01 of S1, of the reflection band of the first dielectric stack, S1, falls between the first peak, 01 of S2, and the second peak, 01 of S2, of the second dielectric stack, S2).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the solar-control film exhibits a Tvis of at least 70% (Figure 6 depicts: at least 70% transmittance over the visible spectrum SL).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness is a multiple selected from 1, 3, 5, 7, or 9 (Examiner notes that 1 is the odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness, as it is an odd multiple of λ/8 or λ/16).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the even multiple of the second equal optical thickness is a multiple selected from 2, 4, 6, 8, or 10 (Cushing: Examiner notes that 2, is the even multiple of the second equal optical thickness, as it is an even multiple of λ/4, λ/8 or λ/16; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the at least one layer that is an odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness is a single optical thickness (Examiner notes that 1 is the odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness, as it is an odd multiple of λ/4, λ/8 or λ/16, for a wave stack of design HLHLH, single the wave stack optical thickness across multiple layers).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the single layer that is an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness is double the equal optical thickness (Cushing: Examiner notes that 2 is the odd multiple of the first equal optical thickness, as it is an odd multiple of λ/4, λ/8 or λ/16, for a wave stack of design HLH LL HLH, LL is the half-wave layer, i.e., double the wave stack equal optical thickness).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 50% of electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range from 800 nm to 1500 nm (Figure 6 depicts: transmission lower than 50% across the infrared region from approximately 0.5 µm to 1.5 µm; Examiner notes that, because Ploke’s filter is and interference heat-reflecting filter, reduced transmission corresponds to increased reflection, and the illustrated transmission below 50% corresponds to reflection greater than 50%).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the solar-control film exhibits a Tvis of at least 80% (Figure 6 depicts: at least 80% transmittance over the visible spectrum SL).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric reflector stack and the second dielectric reflector stack are deposited on the same substrate (Figure 5 depicts: interference system S1 and S2 are disposed on the 17, the same transparent plate/substrate).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric reflector stack comprises from 3 to 11 layers (Figure 1a depicts: S1 having HNHNH layers: Examiner notes that this is 5 layers).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1, wherein the second dielectric reflector stack comprises from 5 to 11 layers, and wherein the single layer that is an even multiple of the second equal optical thickness is one of three middle layers (Cushing: Col. 6, line 26 teaches: HLH LL HLH; Examiner notes that this is 8 layers with HH the middle layer).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pudleiner et al. (US 2013/0242381).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 30% of electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range from 850nm to 1500nm. Ploke and Pudleiner are related because both disclose optical films.
Pudleiner teaches a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 30% of electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range from 850nm to 1500nm ([0083] teaches: multi-ply layer reflects 30% of IR radiation in the preferred wavelength range from 850 to 1500 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Pudleiner and provide a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 30% of electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range from 850nm to 1500nm. Doing so would allow for reflection of infrared radiation over the desired solar-control wavelength range, thereby improving heat-rejection performance of the solar-control film.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 30% of electromagnetic waves over a 600 nm wavelength range. Ploke and Pudleiner are related because both disclose optical films.
Pudleiner teaches a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 30% of electromagnetic waves over a 600 nm wavelength range ([0083] teaches: multi-ply layer reflects 30% of IR radiation in the preferred wavelength range from 850 to 1500 nm; Examiner notes that this is a 650 nm range, which includes a 600 nm range).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Pudleiner and provide a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 30% of electromagnetic waves over a 600 nm wavelength range. Doing so would allow for reflection of infrared radiation over the desired solar-control wavelength range, thereby improving heat-rejection performance of the solar-control film.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ranninger et al. (US 4,145,113).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film further comprising c) a color-correcting layer comprising at least two alternating layers of high and low refractive indices in which the optical thickness of each layer is less than about a one-eighth wave thickness. Ploke and Ranninger are related because both disclose optical filters.
Ranninger teaches a film further comprising c) a color-correcting layer comprising at least two alternating layers of high and low refractive indices (in at least abstract teaches: interference filter having plurality of alternating layers of high and low index if refraction) in which the optical thickness of each layer is less than about a one-eighth wave thickness (Col. 5, lines 15-20 teach: layers with optical thickness of lambda.sub.o/8 and lambda.sub.o/16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Ranninger and provide a film further comprising c) a color-correcting layer comprising at least two alternating layers of high and low refractive indices in which the optical thickness of each layer is less than about a one-eighth wave thickness. Doing so would allow for color correcting of the filter layers at the preferred optical thickness, thereby improving visible-color control while maintaining infrared reflection performance.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film comprising a color-correcting layer comprising at least two alternating layers of high and low refractive indices in which the optical thickness of each layer is less than about a one-sixteenth wave thickness. However, optimizing the optical thickness of the color-correcting layers is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). In the case at hand, Ranninger discusses in Col. 3 lines 35-40, adjusting the thickness, sequence and refractive index of the dielectric layers for wavelength correction and uses examples of lambda.sub.o/16 and lambda.sub.o/8 in Col. 5 lines 15-20 and therefore establishes optical thickness as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would for finer control of the visible color-changing layers, thereby improving visible color neutrality while maintaining infrared reflection performance. Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting the optical thickness of the color-correcting layers and identifies said sizes/ratios as result-effective variables. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to optimize a film comprising a color-correcting layer comprising at least two alternating layers of high and low refractive indices in which the optical thickness of each layer is less than about a one-sixteenth wave thickness since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Choi et al. (“Radio-transparent multi-layer insulation for radiowave receivers”, 2013).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the solar-control film transmits at least 90% of radio frequency wavelengths. Ploke and Choi are related because both disclose optical films.
Choi teaches a film wherein the solar-control film transmits at least 90% of radio frequency wavelengths (page 84, first paragraph teaches: RT-MLI with 12 layers has a transmittance greater than 95% below 200 GHz).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Choi and provide a film wherein the solar-control film transmits at least 90% of radio frequency wavelengths. Doing so would allow for Ploke to maintain radio frequency signal transmission through the solar-control film, thereby improving signal efficiency and performance in the radio wavelengths.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Mori et al. (US 2002/0154387).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the first dielectric reflector stack and the second dielectric reflector stack are deposited on separate substrates that are laminated to form the solar-control film. Ploke and Mori are related because both disclose optical filters.
Mori teaches a film wherein the first dielectric reflector stack and the second dielectric reflector stack are deposited on separate substrates that are laminated to form the solar-control film ([0100] teaches: minus filter 35.sub.1 includes a transparent base and a dielectric multilayer filter and minus filter 35.sub.2 incudes a transparent base and a dielectric multilayer filter; [0101] teaches: three minus filter are connected to one another in a lamination in the thickness direction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Mori and provide a film wherein the first dielectric reflector stack and the second dielectric reflector stack are deposited on separate substrates that are laminated to form the solar-control film. Doing so would allow for each stack to be independently controlled during manufacturing before lamination, thereby improving manufacturing flexibility and assembly of the optical film.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hood et al. (US 5,306,547).
Regarding claim 19, as best understood, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the broad-band reflecting film exhibits a solar reflection of at least 20%. Ploke and Hood are related because both disclose optical films.
Hood teaches a film wherein the broad-band reflecting film exhibits a solar reflection of at least 20% (Col. 8, lines 55-58 teach: reflection of solar energy in all wavelengths of at least about 50%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Hood and provide disclose a film wherein the broad-band reflecting film exhibits a solar reflection of at least 20%. Doing so would allow for increase solar wavelength reflection, thereby improving heat-rejection performance of the solar-control film.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chang et al. (US 2022/0163710).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the layers of high refractive index materials have a refractive index of at least 2. Ploke and Chang are related because both disclose optical filters.
Chang teaches a film wherein the layers of high refractive index materials have a refractive index of at least 2 ([0057] teaches: for high refractive index material filtering, coating uses TiO.sub.2, with a refractive index of 2.6142, which is of at least 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Chang and provide a film wherein the layers of high refractive index materials have a refractive index of at least 2. Doing so would allow for film to use high/low refractive index materials to create alternating interference layers, thereby improving infrared filtering/reflection performance of the solar control film.
Regarding claim 21, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the layers of low refractive index materials have a refractive index of less than 1.5. Ploke and Chang are related because both disclose optical filters.
Chang teaches a film wherein the layers of low refractive index materials have a refractive index of less than 1.5 ([0057] teaches: for low refractive index material, coating uses SiO.sub.2, with a refractive index of 1.4585, which is of less than 1.5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Chang and provide a film wherein the layers of low refractive index materials have a refractive index of less than 1.5. Doing so would allow for film to use high/low refractive index materials to create alternating interference layers, thereby improving infrared filtering/reflection performance of the solar control film.
Regarding claim 22, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the layers of high refractive index materials comprise one or more of: titanium oxides, niobium oxides, indium oxides, tantalum oxides, zinc sulfides, gallium nitrides. Ploke and Chang are related because both disclose optical filters.
Chang teaches a film wherein the layers of high refractive index materials comprise one or more of: titanium oxides, niobium oxides, indium oxides, tantalum oxides, zinc sulfides, gallium nitrides ([0057] teaches: for high refractive index material filtering, coating uses TiO.sub.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Chang and provide a film wherein the layers of high refractive index materials comprise one or more of: titanium oxides, niobium oxides, indium oxides, tantalum oxides, zinc sulfides, gallium nitrides. Doing so would allow for film to use high/low refractive index materials to create alternating interference layers, thereby improving infrared filtering/reflection performance of the solar control film.
Regarding claim 23, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the layers of low refractive index materials comprise one or more of: silicon dioxides, magnesium fluorides, or calcium fluorides. Ploke and Chang are related because both disclose optical filters.
Chang teaches a film wherein the layers of low refractive index materials comprise one or more of: silicon dioxides, magnesium fluorides, or calcium fluorides ([0057] teaches: for low refractive index material, coating uses SiO.sub.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Chang and provide a film wherein the layers of low refractive index materials comprise one or more of: silicon dioxides, magnesium fluorides, or calcium fluorides. Doing so would allow for film to use high/low refractive index materials to create alternating interference layers, thereby improving infrared filtering/reflection performance of the solar control film.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ploke (US 3,279,317) in view of Cushing (US 6,018,421), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hebrink et al. (US 2019/0369314).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 70% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 850 nm to about 1350 nm, and at least 50% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 800 nm to about 1500 nm. Ploke and Hebrink are related because both disclose optical films.
Hebrink teaches a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 70% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 850 nm to about 1350 nm (Figure 5 depicts: Example 2, reflects at least 70% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 850 nm to about 1750 nm), and at least 50% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 800 nm to about 1500 nm (Figure 5 depicts: Example 2, at least 50% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 800 nm to about 1750 nm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Hebrink and provide a film wherein the solar-control film reflects at least 70% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 850 nm to about 1350 nm, and at least 50% of the electromagnetic waves over a wavelength range in the infrared from about 800 nm to about 1500 nm. Doing so would allow for increased infrared reflection over the desired near-infrared solar-control range, thereby improving heat-rejection and performance of the optical film.
Regarding claim 25, as best understood, the modified Ploke discloses the solar-control film of claim 1.
Ploke fails to disclose a film wherein the repeating layers of high and low refractive index materials of the first dielectric reflector stack are polymer layers. Ploke and Hebrink are related because both disclose optical films.
Hebrink teaches a film wherein the repeating layers of high and low refractive index materials of the first dielectric reflector stack are polymer layers (in at least abstract teaches: repeating unit of plurality of optical polymeric layers, layer A is high refractive index and layer B is low refractive index).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ploke in view of Hebrink and provide a film wherein the repeating layers of high and low refractive index materials of the first dielectric reflector stack are polymer layers. Doing so would allow for known polymeric interference layers, thereby improving manufacturability and infrared reflection performance of the optical film.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Banerjee et al. (US 2017/0248746) discloses a filter film stack but fails to discloses a double interference peak, Saito et al. (US 2015/0192718) discloses a dielectric film structure but fails to disclose a double interference peak, Berthold (US 3,637,294), discloses an interference filter but fails to disclose the double stack dielectric layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30 -10/12-6:30 (CT).
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights