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 Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informality: Claim 1 recites the limitation “height of a section...between two ends of the section”, but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this term. For the purpose of examination this was interpreted as, “height of a part…between two ends of the part”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama (JP 2022042850 A) in view of Lambert (US 20120162734 A1).
Re Claim 1, Kageyama discloses, on Fig. 1, 3, and 5, a film (protective film 1)[Par 19], which is cut into at least two parts (Fig. 1 and 3-4: slits 2a-2g divide film 1 and 6)[Par 19], wherein a spherical ratio of any part is not greater than a threshold (see Fig. 3 and 4 where film embodiment 6 where the ratio of height to width of each portion separated by slits 7a-7h does not exceed the threshold of the portion between 7a/7h and 7b/7g) [Par 21]; connecting blocks (Fig. 3-4 shows that the regions between slits 7a-7h are connected below slits 7a-7h)[Par 21] are disposed between the adjacent parts (Fig. 1 and 3-4: slits 2a-2g divide film 1 and 6) [Par 19] after cutting; the spherical ratio is a ratio of a height of a part to a distance between two ends of the part when the film (this is the general definition of spherical ratio and protective film 1 and 6 both are bound by spherical curvatures) [Par 19] is cut along a direction.
But Kageyama does not explicitly disclose, a photonic film.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Lambert teaches, on Fig. 3 and 5, that it is desirable in applied films for the film to be, a photonic film (Fig. 5 shows the repeating index of refraction variation that can be applied as a film in Fig. 3) [Par 13 and 23].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kageyama with Lambert in order to provide, a reflective phase grating configured to reflect a selected wavelength, as taught by Lambert [Par 23].
Re Claim 2, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 1, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 1 and 3a, wherein spacing between the adjacent parts (Fig. 1 and 3-4: slits 2a-2g divide film 1 and 6) [Par 19] after cutting is a set distance (width of slits is 0.1 to 10 mm, and Fig. 3a shows that the slits are uniform in width).
Re claim 3, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, t he photonic according to claim 1, and Kageyma further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein a length (the instant application defines this as the width from the perspective of Kayegema’s Fig. 3a) of the connecting block is 0.1-10 mm (connecting region under each slit is the equal to the width of each slit) [Par 11].
But Kageyama in view of Lambert does not explicitly disclose, wherein a length of the connecting block is 5 mm to 10 mm.
However, Kageyama does teach the explicitly control of the length of the connecting block [Par 11], such that it includes the claimed ranges, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar block lengths to have similar proproties. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Kageyama in view of Lambert such that, wherein a length of the connecting block is 5 mm to 10 mm, in order to better control view obstruction [Par 12].
Re Claim 4, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 3.
But Kageyama in view of Lambert does not explicitly disclose, wherein the connecting blocks satisfy the following relational expression: 0.1%⩽w×s/(L-w×n)×s⩽5%; where w represents a length of each connecting block, n represents the number of the connecting blocks, L represents a cutting direction length, and s represents spacing between the adjacent parts
However, the claimed expression simplifies to
0.1
%
≤
w
L
-
w
n
≤
5
%
.Optimizing the length of each connecting block (i.e. the width) w, the number of connecting blows n, and the length in the cut direction (i.e. height) L of each connecting block, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches embodiments with different spacing numbers and geometric size of the connecting blocks (by nature of the cuts or slits that divide them, See Fig. 3a-3c: where the connecting block is the region of each film 6, 8, and 10 between 7a and 7h, etc., 9a and 9c etc, and 11f and 11a, etc.) [Par 20-24], and thus teaches said metrics as variable which achieves a recognized result (film attachment without wrinkles) [Par 11].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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 Kageyama in view of Lambert such that, 0.1%⩽w×s/(L-w×n)×s⩽5%, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 5, Kageyama in view of Lambert obvaties, the photonic film according to claim 1, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein the number of the connecting blocks (Fig. 3a: region of film 6 underneath each slot, i.e. connecting slot 7a to 7h and 7b to 7g, etc.) [Par 21] is 4 to 5 (Fig. 3a shows 8 slots with four connecting blocks).
Re claim 6, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 1, and Kageyama further teaches wherein the spacing between adjacent parts is preferably 0.5-5 mm [Par 11].
But Kageyama in view of Lambert does not explicitly teach, wherein spacing between the adjacent parts is not more than 2 mm.
Optimizing spacing between adjacent parts is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches spacing (slot width) as a variable which achieves a recognized result (film attachment without wrinkles) [Par 11].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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, the spacing between the adjacent parts so it not more than 2 mm, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 7, Kayegama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 6.
But Kageyama in view of Lambert does not explicitly teach, wherein the spacing between the adjacent portions is 50 μm to 1 mm.
Optimizing spacing between adjacent parts is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches spacing (slot width) as a variable which achieves a recognized result (film attachment without wrinkles) [Par 11].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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, wherein the spacing between the adjacent portions is 50 μm to 1 mm, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 8, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 1.
But Kageyama does not explicitly teach wherein the threshold ranges from 0.02 to 0.035.
Optimizing the spherical ration of each part is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches spherical ration as a variable which achieves a recognized result, see Fig. 3 and 4 to film embodiment 6 where the ratio of height to width of each portion separated by slits 7a-7h does not exceed the threshold of the portion between 7a/7h and 7b/7g, such that the film 6 has a lens-like shape [Par 21].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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, wherein the threshold ranges from 0.02 to 0.035, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 11, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 3, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein the number of the connecting blocks (Fig. 3a: region of film 6 underneath each slot, i.e. connecting slot 7a to 7h and 7b to 7g, etc.) [Par 21] is 4 to 5 (Fig. 3a shows 8 slots with four connecting blocks).
Re Claim 12, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 4, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein the number of the connecting blocks (Fig. 3a: region of film 6 underneath each slot, i.e. connecting slot 7a to 7h and 7b to 7g, etc.) [Par 21] is 4 to 5 (Fig. 3a shows 8 slots with four connecting blocks).
Re Claim 13, Kayegama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film according to claim 2.
But Kageyama in view of Lambert does not explicitly teach, wherein the spacing between the adjacent portions is not more than 2 mm.
Optimizing spacing between adjacent parts (slot width in this case of Kageyama) is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches spacing (slot width) as a variable which achieves a recognized result (film attachment without wrinkles) [Par 11].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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, wherein the spacing between the adjacent portions is not more than 2 mm, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 9-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kageyama in view of Lambert as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (CN 214427723 U, See attached Google Patents Machine Translation).
Re Claim 9, Kageyama in view of Lambert obviates, the photonic film of claim 1.
But Kageyama in view of Lambert does not explicitly disclose, a transparent projection display glass, comprising a first outer sheet glass, a first adhesive layer, the photonic film, a second adhesive layer, and a second outer sheet glass stacked in sequence.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches, on Fig. 1, that it is desirable in optical films to include, a first outer sheet glass (transparent plate 1), a first adhesive layer (first adhesive layer 2), the photonic film (dimming film 5, “…The dimming film 5 uses the common dimming technology, preferably SPD (suspended particle device), EC (electrochromic); LC (liquid crystal or dye liquid crystal), using PDLC (polymer dispersed liquid crystal)”) [Page 3, Par 17], a second adhesive layer (second adhesive 7), and a second outer sheet glass (second transparent plate 8) stacked in sequence.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the system of Kageyama and Lambert with Chen, in order to provide a better display effect, as taught by Chen [Page 3, Par 17-19].
Re Claim 10, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, an automobile, comprising the transparent projection display glass according to claim 9, and Lambert further teaches on Fig. 1, wherein it is to be mounted a front windshield window (windshield 29 comprising reflective phase grating film) [Par 21].
Re Claim 14, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic film according to claim 9, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 1 and 3a, wherein spacing between the adjacent parts (Fig. 1 and 3-4: slits 2a-2g divide film 1 and 6)[Par 19] after cutting is a set distance (width of slits is 0.1 to 10 mm, and Fig. 3a shows that the slits are uniform in width).
Re claim 15, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic according to claim 9, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein a length (the instant application defines this as the width from the perspective of Kageyama’s Fig. 3a) of the connecting block is 0.1-10 mm (connecting region under each slit is the equal to the width of each slit) [Par 11].
But Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen does not explicitly disclose, wherein a length of the connecting block is 5 mm to 10 mm.
However, Kageyama does teach the explicitly control of the length of the connecting block [Par 11], such that it includes the claimed ranges, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar block lengths to have similar proproties. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen such that, wherein a length of the connecting block is 5 mm to 10 mm, in order to better control view obstruction [Par 12].
Re Claim 16, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic film according to claim 15.
But Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen does not explicitly disclose, wherein the connecting blocks satisfy the following relational expression: 0.1%⩽w×s/(L-w×n)×s⩽5%; where w represents a length of each connecting block, n represents the number of the connecting blocks, L represents a cutting direction length, and s represents spacing between the adjacent parts
However, the claimed expression simplifies to
0.1
%
≤
w
L
-
w
n
≤
5
%
.Optimizing the length of each connecting block (i.e. the width) w, the number of connecting blows n, and the length in the cut direction (i.e. height) L of each connecting block, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches embodiments with different spacing numbers and geometric size of the connecting blocks (by nature of the cuts or slits that divide them, See Fig. 3a-3c: where the connecting block is the region of each film 6, 8, and 10 between 7a and 7h, etc., 9a and 9c etc, and 11f and 11a, etc.) [Par 20-24], and thus teaches said metrics as variable which achieves a recognized result (film attachment without wrinkles) [Par 11].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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 Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen such that, 0.1%⩽w×s/(L-w×n)×s⩽5%, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Re Claim 17, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic film according to claim 9, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein the number of the connecting blocks (Fig. 3a: region of film 6 underneath each slot, i.e. connecting slot 7a to 7h and 7b to 7g, etc.) [Par 21] is 4 to 5 (Fig. 3a shows 8 slots with four connecting blocks).
Re Claim 18, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic film according to claim 10, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 1 and 3a, wherein spacing between the adjacent parts (Fig. 1 and 3-4: slits 2a-2g divide film 1 and 6)[Par 19] after cutting is a set distance (width of slits is 0.1 to 10 mm, and Fig. 3a shows that the slits are uniform in width).
Re claim 19, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic according to claim 10, and Kageyama further teaches on Fig. 3a, wherein a length (the instant application defines this as the width from the perspective of Kageyama’s Fig. 3a) of the connecting block is 0.1-10 mm (connecting region under each slit is the equal to the width of each slit) [Par 11].
But Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen does not explicitly disclose, wherein a length of the connecting block is 5 mm to 10 mm.
However, Kageyama does teach the explicitly control of the length of the connecting block [Par 11], such that it includes the claimed ranges, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar block lengths to have similar proproties. Further, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention, to modify Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen such that, wherein a length of the connecting block is 5 mm to 10 mm, in order to better control view obstruction [Par 12].
Re Claim 20, Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen obviates, the photonic film according to claim 19.
But Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen does not explicitly disclose, wherein the connecting blocks satisfy the following relational expression: 0.1%⩽w×s/(L-w×n)×s⩽5%; where w represents a length of each connecting block, n represents the number of the connecting blocks, L represents a cutting direction length, and s represents spacing between the adjacent parts
However, the claimed expression simplifies to
0.1
%
≤
w
L
-
w
n
≤
5
%
.Optimizing the length of each connecting block (i.e. the width) w, the number of connecting blows n, and the length in the cut direction (i.e. height) L of each connecting block, is well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “[W]here 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, Kageyama teaches embodiments with different spacing numbers and geometric size of the connecting blocks (by nature of the cuts or slits that divide them, See Fig. 3a-3c: where the connecting block is the region of each film 6, 8, and 10 between 7a and 7h, etc., 9a and 9c etc, and 11f and 11a, etc.) [Par 20-24], and thus teaches said metrics as variable which achieves a recognized result (film attachment without wrinkles) [Par 11].
Therefore, the prior art teaches adjusting spacing and identifies said metric 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 Kageyama in view of Lambert and Chen such that, 0.1%⩽w×s/(L-w×n)×s⩽5%, since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rossini (US 20160266385 A1) teaches a similar windshield film.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAY ALEXANDER DEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4027. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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.
/RAY ALEXANDER DEAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights