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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 02 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02 July 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: F1, F4, DLC, AP-DLC, AP-PECVD, and TL (see "List of Reference Characters" on page 21). It is noted that the term "DLC" is defined on page 4 of the specification while "AP-DLC" and "AP-PECVD" are defined on page 5.
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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to because it does not contain the heading "Brief Description of the Drawings."
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The applicant is requested to review the application thoroughly and make all appropriate corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Petrmichl (US 2008/0178632).
Petrmichl is directed to a coated article comprising a glass substrate with a diamond-like carbon coating and overlying protective film that is barrier and release layer (paragraph 0007). The coated article may be a vehicle window (paragraph 0005). At least part of the protective film is removed during or after heat treatment (paragraph 0009). After heat treatment, the diamond-like carbon film protects against abrasion (paragraph 0019). The glass substrate is soda lime glass (paragraph 0021). The diamond-like carbon layer has a preferred thickness of 20 to 65 Å, i.e., 2 to 6.5 nm, and may include 1-30% hydrogen (paragraph 0022). In addition to hydrogen, the diamond-like carbon layer may also include silicon (paragraph 0024). The diamond-like carbon layer has both sp3 carbon-carbon bonds and sp2 carbon-carbon bonds, with the sp3 bonds preferably being at least about 70% of the carbon-carbon bonds (paragraph 0022). The substrate may be monolithic (paragraph 0045).
Since the diamond-like carbon film protects the glass against abrasion, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be on an exterior surface of the glass.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations of this claim are met since the claim, while requiring the coating to be arranged in some sections of the exterior-side surface, does not preclude the coating from also being on the rest of the surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Petrmichl (US 2008/0178632).
Petrmichl teaches all the limitations of claims 2 and 19, as outlined above, except for specifying that the diamond-like carbon coating is formed using atmospheric pressure chemical vapor deposition.
The manner in which the coating is applied represents a product-by-process limitation. When the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claim in a product-by-process claim, the burden is on the applicant to present evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. In re Brown, 459 F. 2d 531, 173 USPQ 685 (CCPA 1972); In re Fessman, 489 F. 2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). This burden is NOT discharged solely because the product was derived from a process not known to the prior art. In re Fessman, 489 F. 2d 742, 180 USPQ 324 (CCPA 1974). Furthermore, the determination of patentability for a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself and not on the method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) and MPEP § 2113. In this case, since the diamond-like carbon coating of Petrimichl appears to be the same as that of the invention, e.g., a mixture of both sp3 carbon-carbon bonds and sp2 carbon-carbon bonds, with the sp3 bonds representing at least 20% of the carbon-carbon bonds, the burden is on the applicant to conclusively demonstrate that the product of the product-by-process claims is patentably distinct from the product of the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrmichl (US 2008/0178632) in view of Jördens (DE 102012200969).
Petrmichl teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 5, as outlined above, except for applying the coating over some sections of the glass such that the coating covers from 0.1 to 95% of the surface. However, Petrimichl does teach that the coated article may be used in a shower door, window, tabletop or other suitable application (paragraph 0007).
Jördens is directed to a household appliance having a component with a coating of an amorphous carbon layer providing the component with a surface that is easy to clean as well as resistant to wear and scratches (paragraph 0006). The amorphous carbon layer may be graphite-like characterized with predominantly sp2 hybridized carbon bonds and exhibiting graphite-like properties or diamond-like characterized with predominantly sp3 hybridized carbon bonds exhibit diamond-like properties (paragraph 0008). The substrate may be glass (paragraph 0020). Jördens teaches that the amorphous carbon layer provided on the surface may be adapted to the specific application of the component and discontinuous in nature (paragraph 0019). In one embodiment, the appliance comprising a surface made of glass having distinct zones for cooking and display function in which it is desirable for the cooking zones are provided with a more temperature stable amorphous carbon layer than the display zone (paragraph 0025 and Figure 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that a diamond-like amorphous carbon coating is more temperature stable than a graphite-like amorphous carbon coating.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the coated article of Petrimichl in a household appliance such as a cooktop stove since Jördens teaches that glass coated with a carbon film may be used for such purposes and Petrmichl teaches that their coated article may be used for tabletop and other suitable applications. Additionally, it would have been obvious to provide only selected parts of the area with the diamond-like carbon coating, as shown by Jördens, since only selected areas would be expected to require a more temperature stable coating layer. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that the cooking zones an area of the cooktop that falls within the range recited in claim 5.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petrmichl (US 2008/0178632) in view of Mannheim Astete (WO 2019/130285).
Petrmichl teaches all the limitations of claims 10-12, as outlined above, except for the presence of a second pane of glass joined via a thermoplastic intermediate layer and an optical sensor/camera having a beam path directed through the diamond-like carbon coating. However, the glass substrate of Petrmichl may be a window used in a vehicle.
Mannheim Astete is directed to an automotive glazing (page 1, line 4). The glazing can be paired with a safety system comprising a forward looking camera (page 1, lines 7-23). The glazing comprises two glass sheets adhered with a plastic bonding layer (page 5, lines 9-12 and Figure 1). The glass may have a common hard coat, such as one comprising a form of diamond (page 8, lines 14-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to fabricate with vehicle window of Petrmichl as a laminate of glass sheets with a plastic bonding layer since Mannheim Astete illustrates that laminated glass is commonly used as a vehicle window and it has been held that the selection of a known material (e.g., laminated glass) based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g., vehicle window) supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, it would have been obvious to pair the vehicle window with a forward looking camera to provide the resulting vehicle with a wide array of safety functions (adaptive cruise control, obstacle detection, etc.). A forward looking camera would necessarily have a beam path passing though the diamond-like carbon coating. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of success since Mannheim Astete teaches that the glass used in the laminated glazing may have a hard diamond coating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights