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.
Claims 1 – 11, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US 2015/0064428).
Matsuo et al. is directed to a multi-layered laminated film for applications such as
windows of buildings and automobiles [0075]. Matsuo et al. does not specifically indicate that the film is “for an agricultural house utilizing sunlight”. The limitation “for an agricultural house utilizing sunlight” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Matsuo et al. teach multi-layered films as discussed in this rejection that provide various transmittance/reflectance properties as various wavelengths and incident angles. Since Matsuo et al. teach the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
As to claims 1 – 7, Matsuo et al. teach a multi-layer laminated film includes layers composed using a thermoplastic resin A and layers composed using a thermoplastic resin B, which A layers and B layers are alternately laminated in 51 or more layers, wherein the film has: a heat shrinkage stress of 0.5 MPa to 5 MPa at 150.degree. C. in the longitudinal and width directions of the film; and a heat shrinkage stress kick-off temperature of 110.degree.C. or lower in at least one of the longitudinal and width directions of the film (Abstract). Matsuo et al. teach one preference where the multi-layer laminated film have an average reflectance of 15% or less (transmittance of 85% or more) in the wavelength range of 400 nm to 700 nm, 70% or higher (transmittance of 30% or less) in the wavelength range of 850 nm to 1,200 nm and 40% or higher (transmittance of 60% or less) in the wavelength range of 1,200 nm to 1,400 nm [0060]. Matsuo et al. also teaches that the reflectance can be adjusted for a desired wavelength, for example, by changing the difference in the in-plane refractive index between the A and B layers, the number of laminated layers, the layer thickness distribution, and/or the film-forming conditions (e.g., stretching ratio, stretching speed, stretching temperature, heat treatment temperature and heat treatment time) [0061]. Matsuo et al. additionally provides a variety of examples as shown in Table 1 – 2 below that have various combinations of reflectance in wavelength ranges.
PNG
media_image1.png
504
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matsuo et al. teach the claimed invention above but fails to specifically disclose:
at an incident angle of 0 degrees, an average transmittance of 70% or more at a wavelength of 430 nm or more and 680 nm or less and an average reflectance of less than 80% at a wavelength of 800 nm or more and 1100 nm or less as required by claim 1
at an incident angle of 30 degrees, an average reflectance of 70% or more at a wavelength of 700 nm or more and 900 nm or less as required by claim 2
at an incident angle of 30 degrees, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 450 ± 20 nm is 80% or more, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 660 + 20 nm is 70% or more, and an average reflectance at a wavelength of 700 nm or more and 900 nm or less is 70% or more as required by claim 3
at an incident angle of 0 degrees, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 450 + 20 nm is 80% or more, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 660 + 20 nm is 70% or more, and an average reflectance at a wavelength of 700 nm or more and 900 nm or less is 70% or more as required by claim 4
at an incident angle of 0 degrees, an average transmittance of 80% or more at a wavelength of 430 nm or more and 680 nm or less and an average reflectance of less than 70% at a wavelength of 800 nm or more and 1100 nm or less as required by claim 5
at an incident angle of 30 degrees, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 450 + 20 nm is 80% or more, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 660 ± 20 nm is 70% or more, and an average reflectance at a wavelength of 700 nm or more and 900 nm or less is 70% or more as required by claim 6
at an incident angle of 0 degrees, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 450 ± 20 nm is 80% or more, an average transmittance at a wavelength of 660 + 20 nm is 70% or more, and an average reflectance at a wavelength of 700 nm or more and 900 nm or less is 70% or more as required by claim 7
The claimed ranges of transmittance/reflectance at various wavelengths appear to be close, touching and/or overlapping with the disclosed ranges of Matsuo et al. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Additionally, it has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Matsuo et al. because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
In the case the claimed ranges of transmittance/reflectance at various wavelengths and incident angles are not close, touching and/or overlapping, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the average transmittance/reflectance to include the claimed range. One would have been motivated to optimize the average transmittance/reflectance to the claimed ranges at the claimed angles based on the desires to tune the film to the desired properties depending on its end use. From the discussion above regarding Matsui et al., it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust various processing parameter such as changing the difference in the in-plane refractive index between the A and B layers, the number of laminated layers, the layer thickness distribution, and/or the film-forming conditions (e.g., stretching ratio, stretching speed, stretching temperature, heat treatment temperature and heat treatment time) [0061] to adjust the resulting film properties to result in particular transmittance/reflectance values at particular wavelengths and incident angles. Matsuo et al. teaches various configurations in the examples which would achieve desired functions depending on the film’s end use. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The burden is upon Applicant to demonstrate unexpected results for the claimed transmittance/reflectance values at the claimed incident angles and wavelengths.
Additionally, regarding the limitation of the stiffness of the multilayered laminated film is less than 50.0 mN/cm as required by claim 1, Matsuo et al. teach it is preferred that the multi-layer laminated film have a thickness of 20 um to 300 um. When the thickness is less than 20 um, the stiffness of the film is weak and the ease of handling is poor. Meanwhile, when the thickness is greater than 300 um, the film is excessively stiff and the moldability thereof is thus poor [0071]. It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the layer thicknesses within the range disclosed by Matsuo et al. to balance the ease of handling and molding properties of the film which would result in the claimed stiffness range. It has been held that, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II). The burden is upon Applicant to demonstrate unexpected results for the claimed stiffness range.
As to claims 8 – 9, Matsuo et al. teach that the optical thickness of the adjacent A and B layers satisfy formula (2) below:
PNG
media_image2.png
277
933
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Matsuo et al. also indicate it is preferred that the layer thicknesses distribution also satisfy Formula (2) and Formula (3) below at the same time:
PNG
media_image3.png
57
924
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsuo et al. teach a specific configuration referred to as “711711” which refers a 6 layer multilayered film which are laminated in the order of ABABAB and the optical thickness ratios of the respective layers are 7, 1, 1, 7, 1, and 1 [0068]. It should be noted that two respective layers in this configuration render obvious Applicant’s claimed optical thickness of less than 1.0. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Additionally, it should be noted that the claim does not require an optical thickness of the entire multilayer film; only that the film contains layers that would meet the optical thickness.
As to claims 10 – 11, Matsuo et al. teach that the surface of the multi-layered film can additional contain a functional layer such as an ultraviolet absorption layer [0072].
As to claims 14 and 17, Matsuo et al. teach a multi-layered laminated film that can be used for applications such as windows of buildings and automobiles [0075]. Matsuo et al. does not specifically indicate that the film is “for protected horticulture”. The limitation “for protected horticulture” is a use limitation and does not determine the patentability of the product, unless the use produces a structural feature of the product. The use of the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed use because Matsuo et al. teach multi-layered films as discussed in this rejection that provide various transmittance/reflectance properties as various wavelengths and incident angles. Since Matsuo et al. teach the same materials and structure as disclosed by the Applicant, then it would be capable of performing in the manner claimed.
Claims 12 – 13 and 15 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (US 2015/0064428) in view of Hänsch (US 9,926,739).
Matsuo et al. teach the claimed invention above but fail to teach a woven/knitted
fabric made from the multi-layered film where the warp yarn or the weft yarn is a thin-belt shaped tape and the warp or weft yarn is a filament yarn or a spun yarn.
Hänsch is directed to a light-directing system, in particular for sunlight, having a textile sheet material which in a light-incidence region is positionable in front of a space to be shielded or to be illuminated, or in the use state is positioned in front thereof, and has a weft-thread layer which is formed from a multiplicity of weft threads, wherein the weft threads are stretched in a substantially linear manner and delimit mesh openings of the textile fabric (column 1, lines 10 – 20). As shown in Figures 2 and 3, Hänsch teaches textile fabric 12 having a two-dimensional dual-layer structure in which the weft threads 20 and warp threads 22 are stretched in a linear manner and in each case form a dedicated planar thread layer 26, 28. When viewed in the direction of the surface normal of the textile fabric 12, unobstructed mesh openings 24 which on the longitudinal side are delimited by the weft threads 20 thus result. In order for the layers to be mutually fixed, the weft threads 20 and warp threads 22 are wrapped in the manner of a leno weave by comparatively thin binder threads 30. The binder threads 30 run along the warp threads 22. Said binder threads 30 thereby traverse the two thread layers 26, 28 of the warp and weft threads and encompass the external sides thereof that face away from one another (see column 4, lines 20 – 55). The Examiner equates the binder threads to Applicant’s “filament or spun yarn” and the warp threads and weft threads as shown in the Figures to Applicant’s “thin belt-shaped tape”. Hänsch teaches advantages of a woven configuration to include targeted light-directing properties (column 1, lines 35 – 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to create a woven fabric using tape yarns of the multi-layered film of Matsuo et al. in the configuration of Hänsch to create a light-directing system with targeted light directing properties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER A BOYD whose telephone number is (571)272-7783. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm with alternating Fridays off.
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, Sri Kumar can be reached at (571) 272-7769. 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.
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights