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 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.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen et al. (WO 2021/037467, using US 2022/0264705 as an equivalent English translation).
Claim 1: Nielsen teaches a pane with a transparent, electrically conductive coating (paragraph 0001). The pane may be glass or polymers (i.e. a dielectric substrate) (paragraph 0036). The transparent, electrically conductive coating is preferably a functional coating with anti-sunlight protection having reflecting properties in the infrared range (i.e. a heat-ray reflecting film; i.e. it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the coating is formed on at least one main surface of the pane) (paragraph 0041). The pane (i.e. including the transparent, electrically conductive coating) should enable sufficient transmission of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation for CB radio etc. (i.e. radio-wave transmitting) (paragraph 0009), which is obtained by linear decoated regions having a sinusoidal shape or any wave shape (paragraph 0012) forming at least one pattern within the coating such that the linear regions are partially in contact with one another (paragraph 0010). Being patterned in the coating is considered where the radio-wave transmitting region is in at least a part of the at least one main surface in a plan view. The size and area of zones can be varied by selecting the amplitude and frequency of the sinusoidal decoated regions (paragraph 0012) and having only a small line width does not substantially impair the optical vision through the pane (paragraph 0013). Teaching a small line width and forming a pattern is considered where the radio-wave transmitting region includes a first repeating pattern formed of a slit portion, and being a linear decoated region is considered where the slit portion is where the coating (i.e. heat-ray reflecting film) is not present. The individual zones can form a uniform grid pattern optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). The teaching of a grid pattern and overlapping regions is considered to teach the instantly claimed limitations regarding first unit patterns in a first axis direction, first connection portions on “end” portions (i.e. the end portion is continuous into another sinusoid) having a portion in a second axis direction and being connected to the first line portion. See Fig. 1D of Nielsen.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed heat-ray reflecting substrate (i.e. for example, one of ordinary skill in the art must recognize that the coating would be applied to a major surface of the pane), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as the claimed limitations are taught or understood based on the teachings of Nielsen, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Nielsen does not specifically teach an angle of the sinusoidal linear decoated region, but does teach that the grid pattern can be optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amplitude and frequency (i.e. which would affect an overall angle of the sinusoidal and the first and second axis directions) to optimize the permeability for a desired wavelength. Furthermore, Nielsen teaches that a region with horizontally and/or vertically arranged decoated patterns can have an angle relative to the horizontal of 10° to 80° (paragraph 0032). This angle overlaps the instantly claimed angle and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim 3: Nielsen teaches individual zones can form a uniform grid pattern optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). The teaching of a grid pattern and overlapping regions is considered to teach the instantly claimed limitations regarding first unit patterns in a first axis direction, first connection portions on “end” portions (i.e. the two end portions are continuous into other parts of the sinusoid) having a portion in a second axis direction and being connected to the first line portion (i.e. the first line portion is connected to two end portions). See Fig. 1D of Nielsen and modified Fig. 4 below.
Claim 4: Nielsen teaches that the transparent, electrically conductive coating has at least four zones, preferably 10 to 150 zones and the zones are preferably arranged horizontally and/or vertically (i.e. a plurality of the first repeating patterns aligned in parallel) (paragraph 0032).
Claim 5: Nielsen teaches that the grid patterns act as low-pass filters, and so can be optimized to a cut-off frequency with electromagnetic transmission being affected in a way that smaller maximum distance between the lines leads to higher cut-off frequency (paragraph 0019). Nielsen teaches an example of a distance between lines in the vertical direction of 2.0 mm and in the horizontal direction of 5.0 mm to result in cut-off frequency of 7.5 GHz or 3 GHz for the cut-off wavelength (paragraph 0019). These values (i.e. 2.0 mm and 5.0 mm) overlap the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 7: Nielsen teaches the size and area of zones can be varied by selecting the amplitude and frequency of the sinusoidal decoated regions (paragraph 0012) and individual zones can form a uniform grid pattern optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amplitude, frequency etc. (i.e. which would affect the length of a component of the first connection portion perpendicular to the first axis direction) for obtaining a desired permeability for certain wavelengths, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8: Nielsen teaches linear decoated regions having a sinusoidal shape or any wave shape (paragraph 0012) forming at least one pattern within the coating such that the linear regions are partially in contact with one another (paragraph 0010). As depicted in at least Figs. 1A, 1B, and 1D, these sinusoidal patterns are substantially symmetric axially.
Claim 9: Nielsen teaches individual zones can form a uniform grid pattern optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017) and teaches that regions can have different sinusoidal decoated subregions (paragraph 0022). As shown in Fig. 4, a subregion with a different frequency and amplitudes result in the instantly claimed second repeating pattern as indicated in modified Fig. 4 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
718
1289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10: Similarly as for instant claim 2, outlined above, Nielsen does not specifically teach an angle of the sinusoidal linear decoated region, but does teach that the grid pattern can be optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). Therefore, it would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amplitude and frequency (i.e. which would affect an overall angle of the sinusoidal and the first and second axis directions) to optimize the permeability for a desired wavelength. Furthermore, Nielsen teaches that a region with horizontally and/or vertically arranged decoated patterns can have an angle relative to the horizontal of 10° to 80° (paragraph 0032). This angle overlaps the instantly claimed angle and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges disclosed in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim 11: Nielsen teaches individual zones can form a uniform grid pattern optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). The teaching of a grid pattern and overlapping regions is considered to teach the instantly claimed limitations regarding second unit patterns in a third axis direction, second connection portions on “end” portions (i.e. the two end portions are continuous into other parts of the sinusoid) having a portion in a fourth axis direction and being connected to the second line portion (i.e. the second connection portion is provided on each of two end portions of the second line portion). See modified Fig. 4 above.
Claim 12: Nielsen teaches Nielsen teaches that the transparent, electrically conductive coating has at least four zones, preferably 10 to 150 zones and the zones are preferably arranged horizontally and/or vertically (i.e. a plurality of the first repeating patterns aligned in parallel) (paragraph 0032).
Claim 13: Nielsen teaches that the grid patterns act as low-pass filters, and so can be optimized to a cut-off frequency with electromagnetic transmission being affected in a way that smaller maximum distance between the lines leads to higher cut-off frequency (paragraph 0019). Nielsen teaches an example of a distance between lines in the vertical direction of 2.0 mm and in the horizontal direction of 5.0 mm to result in cut-off frequency of 7.5 GHz or 3 GHz for the cut-off wavelength (paragraph 0019). These values (i.e. 2.0 mm and 5.0 mm) overlap the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 15: Nielsen teaches the size and area of zones can be varied by selecting the amplitude and frequency of the sinusoidal decoated regions (paragraph 0012) and individual zones can form a uniform grid pattern optimized in its permeability for certain wavelengths due to the variability of the patterning in terms of amplitudes, frequencies, distances between the wave lines, design of the overlapping regions and selection of frequency offsets for the adjacent lines (paragraph 0017). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amplitude, frequency etc. (i.e. which would affect the length of a component of the first connection portion perpendicular to the first axis direction) for obtaining a desired permeability for certain wavelengths, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16: Nielsen teaches linear decoated regions having a sinusoidal shape or any wave shape (paragraph 0012) forming at least one pattern within the coating such that the linear regions are partially in contact with one another (paragraph 0010). As depicted in at least Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D, and modified Fig. 4 above, these sinusoidal patterns are substantially symmetric axially or rotationally.
Claim 19: Nielsen teaches the pane may be glass (paragraph 0036) and is suitable for a windshield (paragraph 0034) but also permeable to visible light suitable for front side windows, rear side windows, and rear windows (paragraph 0041), and the anti-sunlight protection reduces heating of the interior of a vehicle or building (i.e. suitable for architectural windows) (paragraph 0041). This teaching is considered to teach the above outlined heat-ray reflecting substrate as being used for window glass.
Claims 1-4, 8-12, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al. (WO 2020/054762, previously cited, using US 2021/0191011, previously cited, as an equivalent English translation).
Claim 1: Morita teaches a radio-wave transmitting substrate that includes a dielectric substrate and a heat-ray reflection film on at least one main surface of the dielectric substrate (i.e. a heat-ray reflecting substrate comprising the dielectric substrate and the heat-ray reflection film) (paragraph 0031). A radio-wave transmitting region is constituted by a plurality of adjacently disposed openings in the heat-ray reflection film where the heat-ray reflection film is absent in a plan view (paragraph 0031). The openings in a plan view are a plurality of parallel lines (i.e. formed of a slit portion), circular or elliptic portions, dots, etc. (paragraph 0086), and may form a lattice pattern (i.e. a first repeating pattern), curved-line, zigzag, etc. and may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087). For ease of production, it is preferable that the openings are straight-lines extending in a first direction or a combination of straight-lines extending in the first direction and straight lines extending in the second direction (paragraph 0092). In a schematic lattice of Examiner’s Figure below, wherein thin lines represent the above outlined openings, a first repeating pattern showing two first unit patterns is highlighted by heavy lines wherein the line in the center is shared by (i.e. overlapping) the right-side end portion of one unit and the left-side end portion of an adjacent unit. The two unit patterns shown in the Examiner’s Figure below meets each of the claim limitations recited in instant claim 1 regarding the first repeating pattern.
PNG
media_image2.png
1052
1807
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Examiner’s Figure)
While not describing the radio-wave transmitting substrate in the same manner as the instantly claimed heat-ray reflecting substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Morita to arrive at the instantly claimed heat-ray reflecting substrate (i.e. by interpreting the disclosure as outlined above), and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular (i.e. substantially 90° corners) or parallelogrammic (i.e. corner angles are deviated from 90°) (paragraph 0087). This range of angles (i.e. between a first axis direction and a second axis direction based on the unit patterns depicted schematically above and forming a rectangular or parallelogrammic shape) overlaps the instantly claimed range and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
Claim 3: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087). As shown in Examiner’s Figure above, each of two end portions of the first line portion has a first connection portion.
Claim 4: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087). A radio-wave transmitting region being a lattice includes a plurality of the first repeating patterns aligned in parallel.
Claim 8: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087), which would be considered to be axially symmetric.
Claim 9: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087). The first repeating pattern highlighted in the Examiner’s Figure above also repeats in a vertical direction instead of the horizontal direction as depicted. The result would be a second repeating pattern along a third axis direction different from the first axis direction, and the pattern would meet all of the instantly claimed limitations of claim 9.
Claim 10: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular (i.e. substantially 90° corners) or parallelogrammic (i.e. corner angles are deviated from 90°) (paragraph 0087), which overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 11: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087). As shown in Examiner’s Figure above, each of two end portions of the line portion has a connection portion, and would also have these features for a second repeating pattern (i.e. for second unit patterns along a vertical direction instead of the depicted horizontal direction).
Claim 12: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087). A radio-wave transmitting region being a lattice includes a plurality of the first repeating patterns aligned in parallel.
Claim 16: Morita teaches the lattice pattern may form an outer shape that is rectangular or parallelogrammic (paragraph 0087), which would be considered to be axially symmetric.
Claim 18: Morita teaches that the radio-wave transmitting region has a radio-wave transmitting loss, of preferably 3 dB or less, more preferably 2 dB or less, still more preferably 1 dB or less in the transmission of radio waves having a frequency of 28 GHz (paragraph 0124).
Claim 19: Morita teaches the substrate as being for window glass (paragraphs 0002, 0006, and 0040).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 14, and 17 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record are the disclosures of Nielsen, or alternatively of Morita, as outlined above. However, neither of these references or any of the prior art of record, teaches or renders obvious the limitations of instant claims 6 and 14 where the connection portions (i.e. of the end portions) are not connected to another repeating pattern,, as the repeating patterns are interconnected in each of the disclosures. Regarding instant claim 17, none of the prior art teaches or render obvious where a quadrangular pattern formed of adjacent repeating patterns have the connection portion located on a midpoint of at least one side of the quadrangular shape (i.e. the connection points are along a side or at a corner of a shape formed by the adjacent repeating patterns).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jiang et al. (US 10,978,777) discloses a window with a patterned conductive layer for blocking heat with openings that do not contain conductive material to form an electrically insulating and radio-transparent region in the coating. Jiang depicts a variety of different patterns that may be used such as parallel lines, hexagonal outlines, triangular outlines, circular outlines, and substantially square or rectangular (i.e. lattice) outlines (Figs. 6-11).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784