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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The references disclosed within the information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 30, 2024, has been considered and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
2. 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.
3. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Fenton et al. (TW I776952 B).
Fenton discloses vehicle glass (mode for invention, paragraph 1) having imaging on the glass with a three-dimensional shape (mode for invention, paragraph 22). Fenton discloses a layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo
(metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142).
Figure 17 shows a three-dimensional pattern (Description of embodiments, paragraph 18) on the vehicle glass, where the pattern layer is divided into a first region and a second region, where there is a difference in shade between the regions, as shown:
PNG
media_image1.png
210
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, as in claim 1. In claim 1, the phrase,
“to implement a plurality of shaded portions” is an intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claim 9, Fenton discloses vehicle glass (mode for invention, paragraph 1) having imaging on the glass with a three-dimensional shape (mode for invention, paragraph 22). Fenton discloses a layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo
(metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142).
Figure 17 shows a three-dimensional pattern (Description of embodiments, paragraph 18) on the vehicle glass, where the pattern layer is divided into a first region and a second region, where there is a difference in shade between the regions, as shown:
PNG
media_image1.png
210
291
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fenton et al. (TW I776952 B).
Fenton is taken as above. Fenton discloses vehicle glass (mode for invention, paragraph 1) having imaging on the glass with a three-dimensional shape (mode for invention, paragraph 22). Fenton discloses a layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142), as in claim 2. In claim 2, the phrase, “formed by printing a plurality of black enamels having a dot shape for a shade difference on the glass substrate and wherein adjusting printing intervals of the plurality of black enamels to realize the difference in shade between the first region and the second region” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 3, Fenton discloses vehicle glass (mode for invention, paragraph 1) having imaging on the glass with a three-dimensional shape (mode for invention, paragraph 22). Fenton discloses a layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142), as in claim 2. In claim 3, the phrase, “formed by printing SO that dot intervals of the plurality of black enamels in the first region are wider than dot intervals of the plurality of black enamels in the second region, whereby 25 the first region is implemented in a relatively brighter shade than the second region” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 5, Fenton discloses a layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142). Fenton does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the metallic layer; however,
thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 6, Fenton discloses a translucent layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142).
Concerning claim 8, Fenton discloses a layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142). Fenton does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the non-metallic layer; however, thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 13, Fenton discloses a translucent layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142).
Concerning claim 14, Fenton discloses a translucent layer having regions of a design of two or more colors, where the design has a pattern and a brushed metal finish having a pattern, graphic or logo (metallic coating layer) (mode for invention, paragraphs 141-142).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 1-3, 5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 20180014942).
Kim discloses a vehicle window glass (background of invention) where Figures 6-7 show a three-dimensional pattern (Description of embodiments, paragraph 18) on the vehicle glass, where the pattern layer is divided into a first region and a second region, where there is a difference in shade between the regions, as shown:
PNG
media_image2.png
650
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Kim discloses an ultraviolet barrier layer comprising zinc oxide (Description of embodiments, paragraphs 16-17), where zinc is known to be metallic, as in claim 1. In claim 1, the phrase, “to implement a plurality of shaded portions” is an intended use.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Concerning claim 2, Kim discloses a vehicle window glass (background of invention) where Figures 6-7 show a three-dimensional pattern (Description of embodiments, paragraph 18) on the vehicle glass, where the pattern layer is divided into a first region and a second region, where there is a difference in shade between the regions. In claim 2, the phrase, “formed by printing a plurality of black enamels having a dot shape for a shade difference on the glass substrate and wherein adjusting printing intervals of the plurality of black enamels to realize the difference in shade between the first region and the second region” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 3, Kim discloses a vehicle window glass (background of invention) where Figures 6-7 show a three-dimensional pattern (Description of embodiments, paragraph 18) on the vehicle glass, where the pattern layer is divided into a first region and a second region, where there is a difference in shade between the regions. In claim 3, the phrase, “formed by printing SO that dot intervals of the plurality of black enamels in the first region are wider than dot intervals of the plurality of black enamels in the second region, whereby 25 the first region is implemented in a relatively brighter shade than the second region” introduces a process limitation to the product claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as 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, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966.
Concerning claim 5, Kim discloses an ultraviolet barrier layer comprising zinc oxide (Description of embodiments, paragraphs 16-17), where zinc is known to be metallic Kim does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the metallic layer; however,
thickness modifications involve a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore obvious. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) See MPEP 2144.04.
Concerning claim 9, Kim discloses a vehicle window glass (background of invention) where Figures 6-7 show a three-dimensional pattern (Description of embodiments, paragraph 18) on the vehicle glass, where the pattern layer is divided into a first region and a second region, where there is a difference in shade between the regions, as shown:
PNG
media_image2.png
650
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Kim discloses an ultraviolet barrier layer comprising zinc oxide (Description of embodiments, paragraphs 16-17), where zinc is known to be metallic.
Claim Objection
7. Claims 4, 7, 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vehicle glass further including where the metallic coating layer is a translucent metallic coating layer made from any one of chromium (Cr), aluminum (Al), cooper (Cu), nickel (Ni), silver (Ag), gold (Au), palladium (Pd), or any combination thereof. The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vehicle glass further including the non-metallic protective layer is a translucent non-metallic protective layer made from silicon nitride (Si3N4). The closest prior art does not teach or suggest the recited vehicle glass further including the pattern layer is provided as a plurality of black enamels having a dot shape for a shade difference on the glass substrate and wherein adjusting printing intervals of the plurality of black enamels to realize the difference in shade between the first region and the second region.
The prior art does not teach motivation or suggestion for modification to make the invention as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lawrence Ferguson whose telephone number is 571-272-1522. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 9:00 AM – 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Frank Vineis, can be reached on 571-270-1547. 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).
/LAWRENCE D FERGUSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights