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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-12 and 20 in the reply filed on 6/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 refers to “n” without defining it. However, claim 6 defines “refractive index (n)”. Claim 5 should have the language -- refractive index (n)--.
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 1-12 and 20 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.
The claims 1, 4, 10 and 20 all use the term “about” when describing values. The specification at [0054] attempts to define the term but does not describe the term about in a way that clearly defines the scope. The term is intended to broaden the scope to also include “insubstantial or inconsequential modifications or alterations”. However, it is not clear how far from the scope “substantial” or “consequential” modifications and alterations need to be.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHIEU et al. (2019/0002341).
Regarding claims 1 and 11,
MAHIEU teaches a reflective panel that includes a substrate coated with a stack of layers that includes a high and low refractive index material and a chromium based reflective layer [0041]. The transparent substrate is glass or plastic [0025].
The claim further refers to a reflectivity of about 4-90% when light is incident on the second surface and reflects off the layered film. However, it is not clear what light is being used and a “neutral gray color” (defined in the specification as |a*|, |b*| ≤5 [0025]) may change if the light used is non-visible or only a particular color wavelength. MAHIEU notes that the glass side reflectance is over 50% when using D65 light [0062]. This range overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I. Applicant states they use the same D65 light for CIELAB values in the specification [0019].
MAHIEU does not teach that the layered film as being patterned to a particular shape but notes that the panels can be decorative [0002]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pattern the decorative reflective panel into any desired aesthetic design or shape, MPEP 2144.04.I.
Regarding claim 2,
MAHIEU teaches the CIELAB L*a*b* values as -5<a*<5 and -6<b*<6 [0063]. The examples also show specific examples of nearly equal a* and b*, see for example [0121]. The disclosure includes a*/b* values of less than 1 and also as an overlapping range making them prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 3,
MAHIEU performs reflectance and transmittance tests with D65 light which extends from 300nm to 830nm. The reference not compare data for reflectance while changing angle of incidence for each wavelength 400-700nm. However, the reference includes a similar transparent substrate with alternating high and low refractive index layers and a chromium reflective layer with the scope of the claim. The similar structure is expected to result in a similar reflectance when changing incident angle from 6° to 50°.
Regarding claim 4,
MAHIEU teaches the chromium layer is 25-40nm thick [0044] which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 5-7,
MAHIEU teaches an embodiment in fig. 3 and [0034]-[0041] which uses a first and second high refractive index layer (H1 and H2) with a first and second low refractive index layer (L1 and L2) positioned between the glass substrate (S) and the reflective chromium-based layer (C). The high refractive index material can have oxides of Zr, Nb, and Ti with refractive indices of 2.2-2.8 (n is greater than 1.7) [0042]. The low refractive index material can be SiOx has n of 1.4-.1.8 [0043] which overlaps the claimed range and is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.04.I.
Regarding claim 10,
The total thickness of the stacked layers can be 100-300nm as shown in Example 1 and 2 [0084]-[0091]. The thicknesses for H1, L1 and C are also provided at [0044]-[0046].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHIEU et al. (2019/0002341) in view of STACHOWIAK et al. (US 2004/0197574).
Regarding claim 8,
MAHIEU teaches that the protective layer deposited on the reflective layer can be made of oxides or nitrides of silicon and aluminum [0060]. It is not clear if the “layers” used in the protective layer are meant to convey the use of multiple layers. However, the use of layers together when both are disclosed as alternatives is considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.06.1. All materials block and absorb light to an extent and can therefore be considered to be light blocking and light absorbing. Accordingly, a layer of silicon nitride and a layer of aluminum oxide can be considered to be light absorbing and light blocking. The claim requires the light blocking layer to have an optical density greater than 4, the claim does not define what frequency of light is being measured.
Alternatively, a scratch protection layer can be added between the protective layer and reflective layer [0061]. The reference does not teach what material is used. However, STACHOWIAK teaches that chromium oxide (CrOx) can provide mechanical and chemical durability to an underlying nitride layer [0050] and Fig. 4. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use chromium oxide as a known scratch protection material. Again, the layered material all interact with light and can be considered to be both light absorbing and light blocking.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MAHIEU et al. (2019/0002341) in view of VANDECRUYS et al. (US 2019/0152843).
Regarding claim 12,
MAHIEU does not teach including an ink layer on the substrate or layered film but notes that the panels can be decorative [0002]. VANDECRUYS teaches that inkjet printing pictures, logos, text, and art can be done onto glass containers (substrates) abstract and [0051]. At the time of filing the invention it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to print a decorative pattern on the reflective panel of MAHIEU to achieve a desired aesthetic. The references do not expressly teach the color of ink when under an illumination source. However, changes in color are part of the aesthetic design choice and considered prima facie obvious, MPEP 2144.04.I. In addition, the examiner notes that the illumination source is not defined and could be a non-visible light, which would result in zero perceptible color shift.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner was unable to find the claimed layered structure with a reflectivity control layer that reflects 4-98% exhibiting a neutral gray color in combination with the blocking stack of CrOx and chromium at 120nm. Claim 20 more particularly claims the layered stack and is described in the specification as exhibiting the neutral gray color with the required reflectivity of claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN MURATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5596. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571272-1418. 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.
/AUSTIN MURATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights