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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, claims 1-15 drawn to a panel, in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 16 is amended to recite all the limitations of claim 1, and the restriction between a panel and a photovoltaic module should be withdrawn. This is not found persuasive because claim 16 drawn to a photovoltaic module that does not require “a coating applied on each of the plurality of coated regions”, e.g. a continuous coating as in the panel; because the photovoltaic module requires “a coating applied to each of the plurality of coated regions” – or a discrete coating.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/17/2026.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a visual board comprising a plurality of coated regions arranged in an array and non-coated regions defined by the plurality of coated regions; and a coating applied on each of the plurality of coated regions” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what “coated regions” being referred to, e.g. the regions designated for being coated with the coating (or only a coating – or one coating - applied to the regions) or regions already having a coating and being coated with an a coating (or there are two coatings). It is also unclear what “non-coated regions defined by the plurality of coated regions” is being referred to.
Claims 2-15 are rejected on the same ground of claim 1.
For the purpose of this office action, the claimed panel is construed as having one coating with the coated regions being construed as uncoated the regions of the visual board that are coated by the coating as shown in figs, 1, 5 and 6 of Applicant’s disclosure.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (CN109390426, see machine translation)
Regarding claim 1, Han et al. discloses a panel (see figs. 1-3 of the original document) applied in a photovoltaic module (see title), the panel comprising:
a visual board (see substrate 1) comprising a plurality of coated regions (see regions having optical structure units 3-4) arranged in an array and non-coated regions (see regions without the optical structure units 3-4) defined by the plurality of coated regions; and
a coating (see coating of optical structure units 3-4) applied on each of the plurality of coated regions (see figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 7, Han et al. discloses a panel a in claim 1 above, and teaches using glass panel (see [0045-0046]). Glass has a transmittance of 85% or more (see [0111] of evidentiary reference to Kim et al., US 2022/0246777).
Regarding claim 12, Han et al, discloses a panel as in claim 1 as in claim 1 above, and teaches the plurality of coated regions (or the optical structure units) having a shape of circle, ellipse or rhombus or composed of shapes (see [0013], [0034], [0048], [0050-0051] of the translation. As such, the plurality of coated regions (or optical structure units) of Han et al. comprises a circular coated regions, elliptical coated regions, diamond-shaped coated region, or combination.
Claims 1, 7, 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. discloses a panel (see graphic cover 110) applied in a photovoltaic module (see fig. 2), the panel (or graphic cover 110, figs. 4(a) ) comprising:
a visual board (see base member 112) comprising a plurality of coated regions (e.g. dotted regions) arranged in an array and non-coated regions (e.g. white regions between the dotted regions) defined by the plurality of coated regions; and
a coating (or cover portion 114) applied on each of the plurality of coated regions (or the dotted regions).
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches the panel (110) has light transmittance greater than or equal to 85% (see [0109-0111]).
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and shows the plurality of coated regions comprising one of circular coated regions (see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches the each of the coated regions (114) in a shape of ellipse ([0086]) and also teaches the panel comprises a curved panel (110) comprising peaks and valleys that are arranged alternately in a first direction (see fig. 10).
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.
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 2-5, 9-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 109390426) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect (or a three dimensional effect, see [0010], [0017], [0035], [0052] of the translation) and a spacing between to the coated regions (or the optical structure units 3-4, figs. 1-3 in the original document) to be 1 micrometers to 5 millimeters (see [0017] of the translation).
Han et al. does not teach an exact range of a spacing between two adjacent coated regions to be 5mm to 10mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of 5 millimeters of the range 1 micrometers to 5millimeters disclosed by Han et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claims 3-4, Han et al. discloses a panel according to claim 1, and teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect (or a three dimensional effect, see [0010], [0017], [0035], [0052] of the translation). Han et al. also teaches combining power generation and decorative function with rich patterns (see [0007]), enhancing the color density contrast effect by adjusting the density of the optical structural unit configurations so that the power generation efficiency is not reduced by maintaining high transparency, and providing the advantages of low manufacturing cost and high cost performance ([0035-0037]).
Han et al. shows using more than 10 coated regions (3, 4) per area (see figs. 1-3). Han et al. does not explicitly disclose a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000; nor do they teach the quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the density of the coated regions such that a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000 or greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate dimensions of the coated regions to achieve a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000 or greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250, because Han et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect.
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise density such as a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000 or greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 5, Han et al. panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect (or a three dimensional effect, see [0010], [0017], [0035], [0052] of the translation). Han et al. also teaches combining power generation and decorative function with rich patterns (see [0007]), enhancing the color density contrast effect by adjusting the density of the optical structural unit configurations so that the power generation efficiency is not reduced by maintaining high transparency, and providing the advantages of low manufacturing cost and high cost performance ([0035-0037]).
Han et al. does not disclose a ratio of the first distance (or the maximum distance between any two points in each coated region) to the second distance (or the minimum distance between two adjacent coated regions) being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the ratio of the first distance to the second distance being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate dimensions of the coated regions to achieve a ratio of the first distance to the second distance being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5, because Han et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect.
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise a ratio of the first distance (or the maximum distance between any two points in each coated region) to the second distance (or the minimum distance between two adjacent coated regions) being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the ratio of the first distance to the second distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dimensions of the coated regions for of to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 9, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect (or a three dimensional effect, see [0010], [0017], [0035], [0052] of the translation). Han et al. also teaches combining power generation and decorative function with rich patterns (see [0007]), enhancing the color density contrast effect by adjusting the density of the optical structural unit configurations so that the power generation efficiency is not reduced by maintaining high transparency, and providing the advantages of low manufacturing cost and high cost performance ([0035-0037]).
Han et al. does not disclose each of the plurality of coated regions has an area greater than or equal to 0.1 mm2 and smaller than or equal to 1 mm2.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make each of the plurality of coated regions has an area greater than or equal to 0.1 mm2 and smaller than or equal to 1 mm2. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate area of each of the plurality of coated regions, because Han et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect.
Regarding claims 10-11, Han et al. discloses a panel according to claim 1, and adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect (or a three dimensional effect, see [0010], [0017], [0035], [0052] of the translation). Han et al. also teaches combining power generation and decorative function with rich patterns (see [0007]), enhancing the color density contrast effect by adjusting the density of the optical structural unit configurations so that the power generation efficiency is not reduced by maintaining high transparency, and providing the advantages of low manufacturing cost and high cost performance ([0035-0037]).
Han et al. does not explicitly teach an area of each of the plurality of coated regions is Al; and an area of each of the non-coated regions is A2, wherein a value of A1/(A1+A2) is greater than or equal to 0.3 and smaller than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to 0.4 and smaller than or equal to 0.6.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make or select an area of each of the plurality of coated regions is Al; and an area of each of the non-coated regions is A2, wherein a value of A1/(A1+A2) is greater than or equal to 0.3 and smaller than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to 0.4 and smaller than or equal to 0.6. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate area of each of the plurality of coated regions is Al and appropriate an area of each of the non-coated regions is A2, such that a value of A1/(A1+A2) is greater than or equal to 0.3 and smaller than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to 0.4 and smaller than or equal to 0.6, because Han et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect.
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise value A1/(A1+A2) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value A1/(A1+A2) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio A1/(A1+A2) to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 13, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches the plurality of coated regions comprise: a plurality of first coated regions (3) arranged at intervals in a length direction of the visual board; and a plurality of second coated regions (4) arranged at intervals in a width direction of the visual board (see figs. 1-3). a spacing between to the coated regions (or the optical structure units 3-4, figs. 1-3 in the original document) to be 1 micrometers to 5 millimeters (see [0017] of the translation)
Han et al. does not teaches a shortest distance between two adjacent first coated regions of the plurality of first coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm, and a shortest distance between two adjacent second coated regions of the plurality of second coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm; nor do they teach the plurality of coated regions are arranged in an array, a shortest distance between two adjacent coated regions of the plurality of coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portions greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm for the shortest distance between coated regions or greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm for the shortest distance between two adjacent coated regions in the ranges of 1 micrometers to 5 millimeters disclosed by Han et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 14, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1, and teaches the plurality of coated regions (or optical structure units) comprise circular coated regions ([0013], [0034], [0048], [0050] of the translation).
Han et al. teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect (or a three dimensional effect, see [0010], [0017], [0035], [0052] of the translation). Han et al. also teaches combining power generation and decorative function with rich patterns (see [0007]), enhancing the color density contrast effect by adjusting the density of the optical structural unit configurations so that the power generation efficiency is not reduced by maintaining high transparency, and providing the advantages of low manufacturing cost and high cost performance ([0035-0037])
Han et al. does not disclose the circular coated regions having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and smaller than or equal to 1.0 mm, and a distance between centers of two adjacent circular coated regions of the circular coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the circular coated regions having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and smaller than or equal to 1.0 mm, and a distance between centers of two adjacent circular coated regions of the circular coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select size and density of the circular coated regions to have a diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and smaller than or equal to 1.0 mm, and a distance between centers of two adjacent circular coated regions of the circular coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm, because Han et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the arrangement density and size of the pattern to achieve the desired visual effect.
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise diameter and distant between centers of two adjacent circular region would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter and distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter and distance between centers of two adjacent circular regions to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 1093990426) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2008/0006323).
Regarding claim 6, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above.
Han et al. does not teach the coating is made of transparent pearlescent ink capable of absorbing light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 100nm and smaller than 300nm, and transmitting light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 300nm and smaller than or equal to 1,100nm.
Kalkanoglu et al. teaches using a transparent pearlescent ink that is infrared transmissive in the near infrared range ([0023], [0071]). In other words, the transparent pearlescent ink of Kalkanoglu et al. is capable absorbing light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 100nm and smaller than 300nm, and transmitting light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 300nm and smaller than or equal to 1,100nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panel of Han et al. by using transparent pearlescent ink for the coating, because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use to form color pattern in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (CN 1093990426) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim et al. (US 2002/00246777).
Regarding claim 8, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches including a curved structure (see [0013], [0034], [0048] and [0050]).
Han et al. does not explicitly teach the visual board comprising a curved structure having a radius greater than or equal to 30mm and smaller than or equal to 150mm; and/or the visual board has a thickness greater than or equal to 3mm and smaller than or equal to 8mm.
Kim et al. teaches the visual board comprises a curved structure having a height difference D to 5mm or more or 50mm or more (see [0162]), and the visual board (112) has a thickness greater than or equal to 2.8 mm and smaller than or equal to 8 mm ([0057]). It is noted that 2.8 is rounded up to be 3, and the range 2.8-8mm of Kim et al. is within the range 3-8mm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Han et al. by having the visual board comprising a curve structure having a radius (or height difference) greater than 5mm (or 5mm or more) or 50mm (or 50mm or more) and a thickness of 2.8mm to 8mm as taught by Kim et al., as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion greater than or equal to 30mm and smaller than or equal to 150mm of the ranges 5mm or more disclosed by Kim et al. or 50mm-150mm in the range 50mm or more disclosed by Kim et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 15, Han et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches each of the plurality of coated regions (or optical structure units 3, 4) in a shape of diamond (or rhombus), or ellipse (see [0013], [0034], [0048], [0050]) so that the panel has peaks and valleys (see fig. 2).
Han et al. does not the panel comprising a curved panel.
Kim et al. teaches the panel comprising a curved panel (see fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the panel of Han et al. by having the panel to be a curved pane as taught by Kim et al., as such modification would involve a mere change in configuration. It has been held that a change in configuration of shape of a device is obvious, absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Kim et al. does not explicitly teach the spacing between two adjacent coated regions ranges from 5mm to 10mm, and/or each of the plurality of coated regions has a width and a length each ranging from 2mm to 5mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the spacing between two adjacent coated regions ranges from 5mm to 10mm, and/or each of the plurality of coated regions has a width and a length each ranging from 2mm to 5mm. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate spacing and dimension of the coated regions to achieve a desired appearance, because Kim et al. teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.)..
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the spacing and size of the coated regions , the precise spacing between adjacent coated regions ranging between 5mm to 10mm and the width and the length ranging from 2mm to 5mm would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the spacing and width and length of the coated regions (or cover portion 114) to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claims 3-4, Kim et al. discloses a panel according to claim 1, and teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.)
Kim et al. does not explicitly disclose a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000; nor do they teach the quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the density of the coated regions such that a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000 or greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate dimensions of the coated regions to achieve a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000 or greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250, because adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise density such as a quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board is greater than or equal to 10 and smaller than or equal to 1,000 or greater than or equal to 150 and smaller than or equal to 250 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the quantity of coated regions per square inch of the visual board to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al. panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Kim et al. does not disclose a ratio of the first distance (or the maximum distance between any two points in each coated region) to the second distance (or the minimum distance between two adjacent coated regions) being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the ratio of the first distance to the second distance being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate dimensions of the coated regions to achieve a ratio of the first distance to the second distance being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5, because Han et al. explicitly adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise a ratio of the first distance (or the maximum distance between any two points in each coated region) to the second distance (or the minimum distance between two adjacent coated regions) being greater than or equal to 0.5 and smaller than or equal to 1.5 would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the ratio of the first distance to the second distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the dimensions of the coated regions for of to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches the visual board comprises a curved structure having a height difference D to 5mm or more or 50mm or more (see [0162]), and the visual board (112) has a thickness greater than or equal to 2.8 mm and smaller than or equal to 8 mm ([0057]). It is noted that 2.8 is rounded up to be 3, and the range 2.8-8mm of Kim et al. is within the range 3-8mm.
Kim et al. does not teach a radius greater than or equal to 30 mm and smaller than or equal to 150 mm; and I
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion greater than or equal to 30mm and smaller than or equal to 150mm of the ranges 5mm or more disclosed by Kim et al. or 50mm-150mm in the range 50mm or more disclosed by Kim et al., because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Kim et al. does not disclose each of the plurality of coated regions has an area greater than or equal to 0.1 mm2 and smaller than or equal to 1 mm2.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make each of the plurality of coated regions has an area greater than or equal to 0.1 mm2 and smaller than or equal to 1 mm2. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate area of each of the plurality of coated regions, because Kim et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Regarding claims 10-11, Kim et al. discloses a panel according to claim 1, and adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Kim et al. does not explicitly teach an area of each of the plurality of coated regions is Al; and an area of each of the non-coated regions is A2, wherein a value of A1/(A1+A2) is greater than or equal to 0.3 and smaller than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to 0.4 and smaller than or equal to 0.6.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make or select an area of each of the plurality of coated regions is Al; and an area of each of the non-coated regions is A2, wherein a value of A1/(A1+A2) is greater than or equal to 0.3 and smaller than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to 0.4 and smaller than or equal to 0.6. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate area of each of the plurality of coated regions is Al and appropriate an area of each of the non-coated regions is A2, such that a value of A1/(A1+A2) is greater than or equal to 0.3 and smaller than or equal to 0.7 or greater than or equal to 0.4 and smaller than or equal to 0.6, because Kim et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise value A1/(A1+A2) would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed value A1/(A1+A2) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio A1/(A1+A2) to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above, and adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Kim et al. does not teaches a shortest distance between two adjacent first coated regions of the plurality of first coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm, and a shortest distance between two adjacent second coated regions of the plurality of second coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm; nor do they teach the plurality of coated regions are arranged in an array, a shortest distance between two adjacent coated regions of the plurality of coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the shortest distance between two adjacent first coated regions of the plurality of first coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm, and the shortest distance between two adjacent second coated regions of the plurality of second coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 1 mm; the shortest distance between two adjacent coated regions of the plurality of coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.1 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select appropriate size and spacing of the coated regions (or cover portion), because Kim et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions, the precise shortest distance between the coated regions would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed shortest distances cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the ratio A1/(A1+A2) to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 14, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1, and teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.).
Kim et al. does not disclose the circular coated regions having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and smaller than or equal to 1.0 mm, and a distance between centers of two adjacent circular coated regions of the circular coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the circular coated regions having a diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and smaller than or equal to 1.0 mm, and a distance between centers of two adjacent circular coated regions of the circular coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm. Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior device. The skilled artisan would have been able to select size and density of the circular coated regions to have a diameter greater than or equal to 0.5 mm and smaller than or equal to 1.0 mm, and a distance between centers of two adjacent circular coated regions of the circular coated regions being greater than or equal to 0.05 mm and smaller than or equal to 0.3 mm, because Kim et al. explicitly teaches adjusting the appearance and transmittance of the panel by adjusting the color, material, area ratio, thickness, size, shape, concentration density, spacing of the coating (or the cover portion 114, see [0065- 0066] of Kim et al.)
In addition, as the efficiency, decorative effects, manufacturing cost and performance cost are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the density and size of the coated regions (or optical structural units), the precise diameter and distant between centers of two adjacent circular region would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed diameter and distance cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the diameter and distance between centers of two adjacent circular regions to obtain the desired balance between decorative effects, efficiency, manufacturing cost, and performance cost (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0246777) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kalkanoglu et al. (US 2008/0006323).
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al. discloses a panel as in claim 1 above.
Kim et al. does not teach the coating is made of transparent pearlescent ink capable of absorbing light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 100nm and smaller than 300nm, and transmitting light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 300nm and smaller than or equal to 1,100nm.
Kalkanoglu et al. teaches using a transparent pearlescent ink that is infrared transmissive in the near infrared range ([0023], [0071]). In other words, the transparent pearlescent ink of Kalkanoglu et al. is capable absorbing light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 100nm and smaller than 300nm, and transmitting light having a wavelength greater than or equal to 300nm and smaller than or equal to 1,100nm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the panel of Kim et al. by using transparent pearlescent ink for the coating, because such modification would involve nothing more than use of known material for its intended use to form color pattern in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Courts have held that the selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANH-TRUC TRINH whose telephone number is (571)272-6594. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Jeffrey T. Barton can be reached at 5712721307. 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.
THANH-TRUC TRINH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/THANH TRUC TRINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726
