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 .
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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the Latin words, instead of English ones, are used for silver, gold, and copper. 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.
Claims 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The phrase "doping element in the doped ZnO may be at least one of" on lines 3-4 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the doping element is required to be one of the subsequently recited elements.
The phrase “second low-refractive-index layer” in claim 11 includes a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-refractive-index” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Use of the term renders the refractive index of the second low-refractive-index layer indefinite.
Claim Interpretation
For the purpose of examination, the doping element of the doped ZnO is understood to be required to be one of the subsequently recited elements. Additionally, the second low-refractive-index layer is interpreted to mean a refractive index less than 1.9 (see claim 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miyagi (US 2008/0199671).
Miyagi is directed to a laminated glass for windows (paragraph 0001). The laminated glass comprises an outdoor side first glass sheet and an indoor side second glass sheets sandwiching an interlayer, with an antireflection film provided on the inside of the second glass sheet (paragraph 0012). The glass exhibits a reflectivity for visible light on the inner surface at an incident angel of 60o of at most 12% (paragraph 0034). The antireflection film comprises a film made of (a) a high-refractive index material with an index of 1.8 to 2.6, (b) a low refractive index layer having an index of at most 1.56 and an extinction coefficient as high as 0.65, and (c) third layer formed of a metal oxide (paragraphs 0019, 0056, and 0057). The layers may be present in the sequence c/a/b with the c layer being adjacent the indoor side glass sheet (paragraph 0063). The interlayer is formed from polyvinyl butyral or ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer (paragraph 0120).
Regarding the limitation that the inner-side visible light reflectivity is less than or equal to 16% at an incident angel of greater than 60o to no more than 70o, since the visible light reflectivity on the indoor surface of the laminated glass of Miyagi is at most 12% for an incident angle of 60o, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately understand that the reflectivity cannot be more than 16% at the smallest incident angle that can be resolved above 60o.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of this claim are met since the material from which the interlayer is made (i.e., polyvinyl butyral or ethylene vinyl acetate copolymer) are both thermoplastic polymers and the visible light transmittance of the glass is preferably at least 775 (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 6, antireflection film having the sequence c/a/b reads on the configuration of claim 6 with the metal oxide c layer corresponding to the TCO layer, the a layer having an extinction coefficient as high as 0.65 corresponding to the absorption layer, and the b layer having a refractive index of 1.56 or less corresponding to the first low-refractive-index layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lu (CN 114455856).
Since CN 114455856 was not published in the English language, citations in the action refer US 2024/0343638 - the publication based on the counterpart application filed in the United States.
Lu is directed to sunroof glass comprising a glass substrate with a metal absorbing layer and an anti-reflection layer sequentially stacked on the inner surface of the glass substrate (paragraph 0004). First and second protective layers may be disposed between the glass and metal absorbing layer and the metal absorption layer and anti-reflection layer, respectively. The anti-reflection layer comprises at least one stack of a high refractive index layer and a low refractive index layer having refractive indices of at least 1.7 and less than 1.7, respectively (paragraph 0004) - suitably having thicknesses of 34 and 63 nm, respectively (paragraph 0072). A low emissivity layer comprising indium tin oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, or aluminum doped zinc oxide may be present between the first protective layer and the metal absorbing layer (paragraph 0055). The glass substrate is a laminated glass including an inner glass layer and an outer glass layer connected by an interlayer (paragraph 0026), wherein the interlayer is made of polyvinyl butyral, ethylene vinyl acetate, or an ionomer polymer film (paragraph 0035). An infrared reflective layer may be located between the inner and outer glass layers (paragraph 0066). The sunroof glass is designed to reduce visible light reflectivity measured from inside the vehicle, thereby eliminating the mirror effect of the sunroof glass when viewed from inside the vehicle (paragraph 0018), with the visible light reflectance preferably being less than or equal to 2% (paragraph 0019). The infrared reflection layer comprises a metal functional layer, which may be gold, silver, or copper (paragraph 0030). The metal absorption layer may be a metal film of one or more of nickel and chromium having a preferred thickness of 5 to 10 nm (paragraph 0038). The low emissivity layer has an emissivity of 0.01 to 0.25 and may be formed of indium tin oxide, fluorine-doped tin oxide, or aluminum doped zinc oxide (paragraph 0055). The low emissivity layer suitably has a thickness of 138 nm (paragraph 0072).
While the sunroof glass of Lu is configured to eliminate the mirror effect when viewed from inside the vehicle by reducing visible light reflectivity measured from inside the vehicle to preferably 2% or less, Lu does not recite the incident angle at which the reflectivity is to be measured. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect glass of Lu to satisfy the reflectivity recited in claim 1 because a reflectivity of 2% or less includes a reflectivity measured at 60 to 70o. (as well as when measured at incident angles of 40 to 60o and 0 to 40o). Alternatively, since the materials used by Lu to construct the sunroof glass reads on the materials used by the applicant, one of ordinary skill in the art would have an expectation of success that the sunroof glass of Lu can achieve an inner side visible light reflectivity satisfying the limitations of claim 1 (as well as claims 2 and 3) by a skilled artisan motivated to eliminate the mirror effect of the sunroof glass when viewed from inside the vehicle.
Regarding claim 6, low emissivity layer (which may be an ITO layer having a thickness of 138 nm - paragraph 0072) reads on the transparent conductive oxide layer, the metal absorption layer (which may be a NiCr layer with a thickness of 8.5 nm - paragraph 0072) reads on the first absorption layer, and the low refractive index layer of the anti-reflection layer (which may have a thickness of 63 nm - paragraph 0072) reads on the first low-refractive-index layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 3, 9, and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyagi (US 2008/0199671).
Miyagi teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the reflectivity is less than or equal to 4% for visible light at an incident angel of 0o to 40o.
However, Miyagi does teach that their glass has preferably a reflectivity at an incident angle of 0o of at most 6.5% (paragraph 0034). Therefore a prima facia case of obviousness exists since range of reflectivity for Miyagi at an incident angle of 0o overlaps the range recited claim 3. See MPEP 2144.05.
Miyagi teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment wherein the a, b, and c layers have thicknesses as recited in claim 9.
However, since Miyagi teaches that their layers have thicknesses which overlap those of claim 9 (see paragraphs 0109-0111), a prima facia case of obviousness exists.
Miyagi teaches all the limitations of claims 11-14, as outlined above, except for illustrating an embodiment having multiple high and low index of refraction layers.
However, Miyagi does suggest that the antireflection film may contain additional layers, including low and high refraction layers (paragraphs 0054-0067). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include other layers, including other high and low refractive index layers, in the antireflection film of Miyagi.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Miyagi does not recite the emissivity of the laminated glass.
However, Miyagi does teach that the high refractive index layer has an extinction coefficient of 0.01 to 0.65 (paragraph 0019). The extinction coefficient determines how strongly a material attenuates IR radiation, and thus its emissivity, with 0 being a perfect thermal mirror and 1 being a perfect emitter. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect laminated glass comprising a layer with an extinction coefficient of 0.01 to 0.65 to have an emissivity that overlaps the ranges recited in claims 15 and 16.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyagi (US 2008/0199671) in view of Lu (CN 114057407).
Miyagi teaches all the limitations of claims 4 and 5, as outlined above except for a visible light transmittance of 16% or less for the laminated glass. However, Miyagi does teach that the laminated glass may be used in automobiles as front glass or sliding glass (paragraph 0114).
Lu is directed to laminated glass used in automobiles (paragraph 0001), such as sunroof glass (0002). Lu teaches that such glass preferably has a visible light transmittance of less than or equal to 16% (paragraph 0019).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a laminated glass having a visible light transmittance of less than or equal to 16% when the glass is to be used in automotive applications beyond the front windshield, such as a sliding sun roof. Moreover, in the absence of a showing of criticality or unexpected results, it would have required no more than routine experimentation and ordinary skill to incorporate tinting in one or more layers of the laminate to achieve a visible light transmittance of no more than 16%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 20 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 invention of claim 10 (as well as claim 20 which depends from 19) is directed to the laminated window glass of claim 17 having a transmittance index of greater than eight, wherein the transmittance index is equal to the visible light transmittance of the laminated window glass divided by the product of the solar direct transmittance of the laminated window glass and the total visible light transmittance of the inner glass and first infrared barrier layer.
Miyagi and Lu represent the closest prior art. However, neither reference teaches or fairly suggests a laminated window glass having the configuration of claim 17 wherein the visible light transmittance of the laminated window glass is more than eight times the product of the solar direct transmittance of the laminated window glass and the total visible light transmittance of the inner glass and first infrared barrier layer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMSEY E ZACHARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-1518. The best time to reach the examiner is weekday mornings, Eastern time.
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, Callie Shosho, can be reached on 571 272-1123. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RAMSEY ZACHARIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights