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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ranges claimed by the instant application include the ranges discloses by the claim 46, namely: U.S. Patent No. 12147009 discloses wherein, the textured region exhibits a pixel power deviation in a range of 1.2-2.1% (thus suggesting wherein the textured region exhibits a pixel power deviation in a range of less than 1.5% as required by claim 1 of the instant application), wherein, the textured region exhibits a specular reflectance in a range of 0.5-1.75% (thus suggesting wherein, the textured region exhibits a specular reflectance of less than 0.85% as required by claim 1 of the instant application), wherein, the index of refraction of the substrate or the low-refractive index material is within a range of from 1.4 to 1.6 (thus teaching wherein, the index of refraction of the substrate or the low-refractive index material is within a range of from 1.4 to 1.6), and wherein, the index of refraction of the high-refractive index material is within a range of 1.6 to 2.3 (thus teaching wherein the index of refraction of the high-refractive index material is within a range of 1.6 to 2.3 as required by claim 1 of the instant application).
Claims 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 is narrower than claim 10 and overlaps in scope.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 in view of Choi (WO 2015108266).
With respect to claims 4 and 14, claims 20 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 discloses the substrate of claim 1 and 10, but does not disclose wherein the substrate comprises a glass substrate or glass- ceramic substrate.
Choi discloses wherein the substrate comprises a glass substrate (see fig.17, 100 and 510 and 110b) or glass-ceramic substrate.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the substrate of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 with the teaching of Choi so that the substrate comprises a glass substrate or glass- ceramic substrate to enhance the utility of the substrate at reduced cost.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 in view of Choi (WO 2015108266) in view of Anderson (United States Patent Publication 5, 891, 556).
With respect to claims 9 and 19, claim 20 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 discloses the substrate of claim 1 and 10, but does not disclose wherein he high-refractive index material comprises AINx, SiOxNy, or SiNx.
Anderson discloses wherein he high-refractive index material comprises AINx, SiOxNy, or SiNx (col.4, lines 25-33).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high-refractive index material of claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 with the teaching of Anderson so that it comprises AINx, SiOxNy, or SiNx to enhance the utility of the substrate.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 15-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009.
With respect to claims 5-8 and 15-18 , claims 5 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 discloses the substrate of claims 1 and 10, but does not disclose wherein the textured region exhibits a distinctness-of-image of 25% to 85%, wherein the textured region exhibits a distinctness-of-image of less than 50%, wherein the textured region exhibits a transmission haze of less than 2.5%, wherein the textured region exhibits a transmittance of greater than 92%.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify of claims 5 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12147009 so that mean elevation of the high- refractive index material is less than the higher mean elevation of the one or more higher surfaces by a distance within a range of 100 nm to the textured region exhibits a distinctness-of-image of 25% to 85%, wherein the textured region exhibits a distinctness-of-image of less than 50%, wherein the textured region exhibits a transmission haze of less than 2.5%, wherein the textured region exhibits a transmittance of greater than 92%, since it would predictably enhance the utility of the glass and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, 3, 11, 12 and 13 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.
With respect to claim 2, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the substrate of claim 1, wherein the intermediate mean elevation of the high-index material is less than the higher mean elevation of the one or more higher surfaces by a distance within a range of 100 nm to 190 nm; the lower mean elevation of the one or more lower surfaces is less than the higher mean elevation of the one or more higher surfaces by a distance within a range of 220 nm to 370 nm; and the intermediate mean elevation of the high-index material is greater than the lower mean elevation of the one or more lower surfaces by a distance within a range of 100 nm to 200 nm.
With respect to claim 3, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the substrate of claim 1, in that the substate comprises the high-refractive index material forming one or more intermediate surfaces residing at an intermediate mean elevation parallel to the base-plane that is greater than the lower mean elevation but less than the higher mean elevation, the high-refractive index material comprising an index of refraction that is greater than an index of refraction of the substrate or a low-refractive index material providing the one or more higher surfaces, wherein, the textured region exhibits a pixel power deviation in a range of less than 1.5%,wherein, the textured region exhibits a specular reflectance of less than 0.85%,wherein, the index of refraction of the substrate or the low-refractive index material is within a range of from 1.4 to 1.6, and wherein, the index of refraction of the high-refractive index material is within a range of 1.6 to 2.3, wherein the high-refractive index material occupies 22% to 49% of an area of a plane that is (i) parallel to the base-plane and (ii) that extends through the high-refractive index material, the area bound by the textured region.
With respect to claim 11, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the substrate of claim 10, wherein: the textured region exhibits a pixel power deviation in a range of 1.2-2.1%, the textured region exhibits a specular reflectance in a range of 0.5-1.75%,the textured region exhibits a transmittance of greater than 92%,the index of refraction of the substrate or the low-refractive index material is within a range of from 1.4 to 1.6, and the index of refraction of the high-refractive index material is within a range of 1.6 to 2.3.
With respect to claim 12, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the substrate of claim 10, wherein the textured region exhibits a pixel power deviation in a range of less than 1.5%,the textured region exhibits a specular reflectance of less than 0.85%,the textured region exhibits a transmittance of greater than 92%,the index of refraction of the substrate or the low-refractive index material is within a range of from 1.4 to 1.6, and the index of refraction of the high-refractive index material is within a range of 1.6 to 2.3.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the substrate of claim 10, wherein the intermediate mean elevation of the high-index material is less than the higher mean elevation of the one or more higher surfaces by a distance within a range of 100 nm to 190 nm; the lower mean elevation of the one or more lower surfaces is less than the higher mean elevation of the one or more higher surfaces by a distance within a range of 220 nm to 370 nm; and the intermediate mean elevation of the high-index material is greater than the lower mean elevation of the one or more lower surfaces by a distance within a range of 100 nm to 200 nm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY L. BROOKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5711. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-4:00 PM.
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, Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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.
/JERRY L BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights