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 .
Priority
Note that Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of their foreign priority application, or its corresponding filing date, to overcome any rejection herein because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The specification as filed does not adequately support claim 6 wherein the lower refractive index layers are chosen from the materials listed in claim 6. In contrast, the specification appears to disclose that it is the “high” index layers that are chosen from those listed materials (see specification page 7, lines 3-9).
It appears that claim 6 may include a typographical error as the listed materials are well known in the art as “high” index layers which is also consistent with what is disclosed in the specification.
As such, claim 6 will be interpreted as requiring the “high” index materials are chosen from the listing.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 appears to include a typographical error as the listed materials are well known in the art as “high” index layers which is also consistent with what is disclosed in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-10 and 16 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 7-10 are rejected as it is unclear whether the claims are now requiring the first dielectric coating and the first dielectric coating comprises the listed layers and thicknesses or are the claims reciting conditional limitations wherein if the optical first dielectric is present in the prior art, it must have the specific layers and thicknesses.
For examination, the claims will be interpreted as conditional.
Claim 16 is rejected as it is unclear whether the claim is now requiring the index material to be the nitride from claim 6 and said nitride is that listed in claim 16 or is the claim reciting a conditional limitation wherein if the index layer of the prior art is the nitride alternative from claim 6, it must be that recited in claim 16.
For examination, the claims will be interpreted as conditional.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sternchuss (USPub20150286079)
Regarding claims 1-6 and 16: ‘079 teaches a material comprising a substrate coated with a functional coating comprising from the substrate (first and second dielectric coatings shown in bold),
Si3N4 (HI layer) /SiO2 (LI layer) /ITO (TCO functional layer) /Si3N4 (HI layer) /SiO2 (LI layer)
‘079 provides Examples including each layers physical thickness (PT) in nm starting from the substrate such as that shown below (1st layer listed at top of Table is that contacting the substrate). Given that ‘079’s Si3N4 (HI layers) have an index (RI) of 2 and the SiO2 (LI layers) have an index (RI) of 1.5 (Table 1), the optical thicknesses are calculated (OT= RI* PT) and are also listed in the table
Ex4 (Physical T)
Optical T
Si3N4
25
50
SiO2
40
60
ITO
120
Si3N4
35
70
SiO2
60
90
As shown above, the optical thickness of the HI layer and LI layer in the first dielectric coating (top two layers in the Table) falls within the ranges claimed.
The HI index layers having an index of 2 is higher than the LI layers having an index of 1.5 with a difference (i.e. variation) of 0.5 at 550nm (note ‘079 teaches throughout the indices being that measured at 550nm).
As shown above, the optical thickness of the LI layer (lowermost SiO2 layer in Table) in the second dielectric coating falls within the range claimed. Although the optical thickness for the HI layer in the above Example may be 70nm falling outside the range claimed, ‘079 teaches that the physical thickness of this layer (‘079 discloses the physical thickness of this Si3N4 layer as e1) can be at least 5 to less than 80nm (0008, 0010) and even 10-50nm (0055). Given these teachings together with the HI layer’s index being 2, allows for optical thicknesses overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05). For example, the HI layer having a 45nm physical thickness instead of the 35nm of the Example will provide for an optical thickness of 90nm (90nm= 2*45nm).
The HI index layers having an index of 2 is higher than the LI layers having an index of 1.5 with a difference (i.e. variation) of 0.5 at 550nm (note ‘079 teaches throughout the indices being that measured at 550nm).
The sum of the optical thicknesses of the first and second dielectric coatings shown above is greater than 200nm.
Regarding claim 7: While the optical thicknesses from the above Example may not meet the requirements claimed, note that ‘079 teaches that the HI and LI layers of their sequence can have the following physical thicknesses,
Physical Thicknesses (nm)
Si3N4 (ey) (0102)
5-50
SiO2 (ez) (0103)
10-50
ITO
Si3N4 (e1) (0008, 0010, 0055)
5 to <80
SiO2 (e2) (0052, claim 2)
30-100
Given these teachings together with the HI layer’s index being 2 and LI layers being 1.5, allows for optical thicknesses overlapping the ranges claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
For example, the above teachings allow for the following optical thicknesses.
Physical Thicknesses (nm)
Physical thickness
Optical thickness
Si3N4 (ey) (0102)
5-50
5
10
SiO2 (ez) (0103)
10-50
10
15
ITO
Si3N4 (e1) (0008, 0010, 0055)
5 to <80
60
120
SiO2 (e2) (0052, claim 2)
30-100
85
127.5
Regarding claim 8 and 9: While the optical thicknesses from the above Example may not meet the requirements claimed, similar to that discussed above, ‘079 teaches that their layers can have the following physical thicknesses and together with the HI layer’s index being 2 and LI layers being 1.5, allows for optical thicknesses overlapping the ranges claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
For example, the above teachings allow for the following optical thicknesses.
Physical Thicknesses (nm)
Physical thickness
Optical thickness
Si3N4 (ey) (0102)
5-50
30
60
SiO2 (ez) (0103)
10-50
20
30
ITO
Si3N4 (e1) (0008, 0010, 0055)
5 to <80
60
120
SiO2 (e2) (0052, claim 2)
30-100
85
127.5
Regarding claim 10: While the optical thicknesses from the above Example may not meet the requirements claimed, similar to that discussed above, ‘079 teaches that their layers can have the following physical thicknesses and together with the HI layer’s index being 2 and LI layers being 1.5, allows for optical thicknesses overlapping or are so close to the ranges claimed to render them obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
For example, the above teachings allow for the following optical thicknesses.
Physical Thicknesses (nm)
Physical thickness
Optical thickness
Si3N4 (ey) (0102)
5-50
35
70
SiO2 (ez) (0103)
10-50
50
75
ITO
Si3N4 (e1) (0008, 0010, 0055)
5 to <80
60
120
SiO2 (e2) (0052, claim 2)
30-100
100
150
Regarding claim 11: ‘079 teaches a laminated glazing comprising the material of claim 1 and a second substrate, the material and second substrate interconnected by an interlayer (see Figures).
2. Claim(s) 1-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen (WO2021156023, rejection using corresponding English document USPub2023039752) in view of USPub20160229741 and evidenced by RefractiveIndex.info .
Regarding claims 1-6 and 16: 752 teaches a material comprising a substrate coated with a functional coating comprising from the substrate shown below (0027-0028, 0030, 0032-0040, 0042, Examples). Given that Si3N4 has an index of about 2.02 at 550nm and SiO2 has an index of about 1.47 at 550nm (see Refractive Index Info as evidence), ‘752 results in the following optical thickness.
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
Blocking layer Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower AR SiO2
5-100
7.35-147
ITO
Barrier layer Si3N4
5-20
10.1-40.4
Upper AR SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
As shown above, the optical thickness of the HI layer and LI layer in the first dielectric coating (top two layers in the Table) falls within the ranges claimed.
The HI index layers having an index of 2.02 is higher than the LI layers having an index of 1.47 with a difference (i.e. variation) of 0.55 at 550nm.
As shown above, the optical thickness range for the LI layer in the second dielectric overlaps the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
While the optical thickness range shown above of the HI index layers in the second dielectric falls outside the range claimed, note that ‘752 does not appear to limits their physical thickness to 5-20nm. Instead, ‘752 only generally teaches this layer being a barrier layer and merely suggests 5-20nm being a preferable physical thickness (0033). Initially note that even though ‘752 may teach a preferred thickness of 5-20nm, the courts held that a reference’s preferred embodiments are not taken to be limiting. Further, as ‘752 does not appear to place actual thickness limits on the layer but instead only generally teach it acting as a barrier layer for an ITO underlayer, it would be well within the skill in the art to look to the prior art to find desirable and suitable thicknesses for such a layer.
In the instant case, as ‘741 from the same field of endeavor of a Si3N4 barrier layer for an underlying ITO, teaches that such a barrier layer can have a physical thickness of 3-50nm (0054), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘752 to include their Si3N4 layer in the second dielectric having a physical thickness of 3-50nm to act as a barrier on the ITO.
This modification will provide for the following.
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
Blocking layer Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower AR SiO2
5-100
7.35-147
ITO
Barrier layer Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper AR SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
As shown above, the 3-50nm thickness range together with Si3N4 having an index of 2.02 allows for the HI layer in the second dielectric to have an optical thickness overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
The Si3N4 of the second dielectric having an index of 2 is higher than the LI layer having an index of 1.5 with a difference (i.e. variation) of 0.5 at 550nm (note ‘079 teaches throughout the indices being that measured at 550nm).
The above optical thickness ranges allows for sums of the first and second dielectric coatings overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7: As discussed above, 752 includes the following wherein the individual optical thicknesses overlap or are so close to (note that the 20.2 end point of the blocking layer is so close to the claimed 20nm end point but additionally the Examiner notes for the record that if one skilled in the art rounded Si3N4’s 2.02 index, they would obtain an index of 2 providing an optical thickness for the blocking layer being 20-100nm) the individual ranges claimed to render them obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
Blocking layer Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower AR SiO2
5-100
7.35-147
ITO
Barrier layer Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper AR SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
Regarding claim 8 and 9: As discussed above, 752 includes the following wherein the individual optical thicknesses overlap with the individual ranges claimed as well as allows for sums overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
Blocking layer Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower AR SiO2
5-100
7.35-147
ITO
Barrier layer Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper AR SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
Regarding claim 10: As discussed above, 752 includes the following wherein the individual optical thicknesses overlap or are so close (note that the 147 end point of the upper AR layer is so close to the claimed 150nm end point but additionally the Examiner notes for the record that if one skilled in the art rounded SiO2’s 1.47 index, they would obtain an index of 1.5 providing an optical thickness for the upper AR layer being 15-150nm) to the individual ranges claimed to render them obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
Blocking layer Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower AR SiO2
5-100
7.35-147
ITO
Barrier layer Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper AR SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
Regarding claim 11 and 12: ‘752 teaches laminated glazing comprising a material and a second substrate, the material and second substrate connected by an interlayer and the coating is positioned on a face 4 as claimed (see Figures).
3. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen (WO2021156023, rejection using corresponding English document USPub2023039752) and USPub20160229741 as applied to claim 11 in view of USPub20180086028.
Regarding claim 13: While ‘752 does teach a laminated glazing according to claim 11, ‘752 does not explicitly disclose a luminous glazing with the requirements claimed. However, ‘752 does not exclude such features and instead, only generally teach their laminated glazing being suitable for vehicles, in particular roof windows, side windows, rear window, etc. (0017, 0078).
As ‘028, who similarly teach laminated glazings for vehicles, in particular roof windows, side windows, rear window, etc. (abstract, Figures, 0101), disclose it being desirable in such applications to make laminated glazings that of luminous glazings comprising a light source coupled to form a light guide and a light extractor element for extracting light (see abstract and Figures), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘752 to include the laminated glazing being a luminous glazing according to ‘028 comprising a light source coupled to form a light guide and a light extractor element for extracting light to obtain a desirable glazing for roof panels, side panes, rear window, etc.
4. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen (WO2021156023, rejection using corresponding English document USPub2023039752), USPub20160229741 and USPub20180086028 as applied to claim 13 in view of USPub20220171116.
Regarding claim 14: As discussed above, ‘752 was modified to include their laminated glazing being a luminous glazing according to ‘028 meeting claim 13 and it is noted that in ‘028, the light extracting element can be a patterned layer element (see 0123-0124).
While it is not explicitly disclosed that said element is a diffusing layer, given that ‘116, from the same field of endeavor of luminous laminated glazings for vehicles comprising a light extracting element, discloses that it is desirable to make said element diffusing as desired for aesthetics, lessen brightness, scatter light, etc. (0025, 0037, 0045-0048), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘752 to include their element being diffusing as desired for aesthetics, lessen brightness, scatter light, etc.
Regarding claim 15: As discussed above, the luminous glazing is for vehicles such as roof windows, side windows, rear window, etc.
5. Claim(s) 1-12, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20200124771 in view of in view of USPub20160229741 and evidenced by RefractiveIndex.info .
Regarding claims 1-6 and 16: ‘771 teaches a material comprising a substrate coated with a functional coating comprising from the substrate shown below (Examples, 0028-0029, 0035-0036). Given that Si3N4 has an index of about 2.02 at 550nm and SiO2 has an index of about 1.47 at 550nm (see Refractive Index Info as evidence), ‘771 results in the following optical thickness.
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
blocking Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower SiO2
5-50
7.35-73.5
ITO
barrier Si3N4
5-20
10.1-40.4
Upper SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
As shown above, the optical thickness of the HI layer and LI layer in the first dielectric coating (top two layers in the Table) falls within the ranges claimed.
The HI index layers having an index of 2.02 is higher than the LI layers having an index of 1.47 with a difference (i.e. variation) of 0.55 at 550nm.
As shown above, the optical thickness range for the LI layer in the second dielectric overlaps the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
While the optical thickness range shown above of the HI index layer in the second dielectric falls outside the range claimed, note that ‘771 does not appear to limits their physical thickness to 5-20nm. Instead, ‘771 only generally teaches this layer being a barrier layer and merely suggests 5-20nm being a preferable physical thickness (0035). Initially note that even though ‘771 may teach a preferred thickness of 5-20nm, the courts held that a reference’s preferred embodiments are not taken to be limiting. Further, as ‘771 does not appear to place actual thickness limits on the layer but instead only generally teach it acting as a barrier layer for an ITO underlayer, it would be well within the skill in the art to look to the prior art to find desirable and suitable thicknesses for such a layer.
In the instant case, as ‘771 from the same field of endeavor of a Si3N4 barrier layer for an underlying ITO, teaches that such a barrier layer can have a physical thickness of 3-50nm (0054), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘771 to include their Si3N4 layer in the second dielectric having a physical thickness of 3-50nm to act as a barrier on the ITO.
This modification will provide for the following.
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
blocking Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower SiO2
5-50
7.35-73.5
ITO
barrier Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
As shown above, the 3-50nm thickness range together with Si3N4 having an index of 2.02 allows for the HI layer in the second dielectric to have an optical thickness overlapping the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
The Si3N4 of the second dielectric having an index of 2 is higher than the LI layer having an index of 1.5 with a difference (i.e. variation) of 0.5 at 550nm (note ‘079 teaches throughout the indices being that measured at 550nm).
The above optical thickness ranges allows for sums of the first and second dielectric coatings overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7: As discussed above, 771 includes the following wherein the individual optical thicknesses overlap or are so close (note that the 20.2 end point of the blocking layer is so close to the claimed 20nm end point but additionally the Examiner notes for the record that if one skilled in the art rounded Si3N4’s 2.02 index, they would obtain an index of 2 providing an optical thickness for the blocking layer being 20-100nm) to the individual ranges claimed to render them obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
blocking Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower SiO2
5-50
7.35-73.5
ITO
barrier Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
Regarding claim 8 and 9: As discussed above, 771 includes the following wherein the individual optical thicknesses overlap with the individual ranges claimed as well as allows for sums overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
blocking Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower SiO2
5-50
7.35-73.5
ITO
barrier Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
Regarding claim 10: As discussed above, 771 includes the following wherein the individual optical thicknesses overlap or are so close (note that the 147 end point of the upper SiO2 layer is so close to the claimed 150nm end point but additionally the Examiner notes for the record that if one skilled in the art rounded SiO2’s 1.47 index, they would obtain an index of 1.5 providing an optical thickness for the upper siO2 layer being 15-150nm) to the individual ranges claimed to render them obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Physical thickness (nm)
Optical Thickness
blocking Si3N4
10-50
20.2-101
Lower SiO2
5-50
7.35-73.5
ITO
barrier Si3N4
3-50
6.06-101
Upper SiO2
10-100
14.7-147
Regarding claim 11 and 12: ‘771 teaches laminated glazing comprising the material (0017) which will implicitly include a second substrate, the material and second substrate being connected by an interlayer. The coating is positioned on a face 4 as claimed (see 0017).
6. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20200124771 and USPub20160229741 as applied to claim 11 in view of USPub20180086028.
Regarding claim 13: While ‘771 does teach a laminated glazing according to claim 11, ‘771 does not explicitly disclose a luminous glazing with the requirements claimed. However, ‘771 does not exclude such features and instead, only generally teach their laminated glazing being suitable for vehicles, in particular roof windows, side windows, rear window, etc. (0055).
As ‘028, who similarly teach laminated glazings for vehicles, in particular roof windows, side windows, rear window, etc. (abstract, Figures, 0101), disclose it being desirable in such applications to make laminated glazings that of luminous glazings comprising a light source coupled to form a light guide and a light extractor element for extracting light (see abstract and Figures), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘771 to include the laminated glazing being a luminous glazing according to ‘028 comprising a light source coupled to form a light guide and a light extractor element for extracting light to obtain a desirable glazing for roof panels, side panes, rear window, etc.
7. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPub20200124771, USPub20160229741 and USPub20180086028 as applied to claim 13 in view of USPub20220171116.
Regarding claim 14: As discussed above, ‘771 was modified to include their laminated glazing being a luminous glazing according to ‘028 meeting claim 13 and it is noted that in ‘028, the light extracting element can be a patterned layer element (see 0123-0124).
While it is not explicitly disclosed that said element is a diffusing layer, given that ‘116, from the same field of endeavor of luminous laminated glazings for vehicles comprising a light extracting element, discloses that it is desirable to make said element diffusing as desired for aesthetics, lessen brightness, scatter light, etc. (0025, 0037, 0045-0048), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘771 to include their element being diffusing as desired for aesthetics, lessen brightness, scatter light, etc.
Regarding claim 15: As discussed above, the luminous glazing is for vehicles such as roof windows, side windows, rear window, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights