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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 & 33.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 25, & 27 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 2015/0140301 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Fisher et al. teach a laminated glass structure for attenuation of acoustic noise (“attenuating sound transmission”) (paragraph [0050]). The laminate may contain three or more thin transparent glass sheets (22,24, 26) with polymer interlayers 28 and 30 between adjacent glass sheets (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0003] & [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
565
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The glass sheets may be formed in a float glass method (paragraph [0043]), which is the same type of glass used by Applicant (see Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0029]). Each of the glass sheets may have equal thickness (symmetrical) and are thin, having a thickness within a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm, preferably less than 1.4 mm, wherein the working examples contained glass sheets of thickness 0.89 mm or 1 mm (paragraphs [0010], [0023], [0027], & Fisher’s claim 6), which is includes Applicant’s transparent glass plies having a thickness of 1.2 – 1.4 mm as in Applicant’s Figs. 6 & 9 (discussed above) and Applicant’s claimed range of about 1.2 to about 1.6. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Exemplary interlayers can be formed of acoustic grade PVB (paragraph [0047] & Table 1) having a thickness of about 0.76 mm to about 0.81 mm, and specific inventive embodiments wherein the PVB layer has thickness of 0.76 mm (paragraphs [0010], [0024], [0026], [0045], [0051], & Fisher’s claim 12), which is sufficiently specific to anticipate Applicant’s claimed first interlayer of acoustic PVB and second interlayer of acoustic PVB separating the glass plies by a thickness of about 0.76 mm. Acoustic grade PVB is inherently capable of dissipating mechanical energy from sound vibrations into heat energy.
Fisher et al. teach conventional glazings typically include two plies of about 2 mm thick (2.1 mm or 2.3 mm thick) soda lime glass with a PVB interlayer (paragraph [0007] & [0066]). Furthermore, Fisher et al. teach the glass laminates comprising opposing glass sheets having substantially identical thicknesses (i.e., symmetrical laminates) less than 2.0 mm, and more preferably or less than 1.4 mm, can provide a maximum coincidence frequency and corresponding maximum in the acoustic transmission loss at the coincidence frequency (paragraph [0057]).
Fisher et al. do not teach a comparison of sound transmission attenuation between an inventive three-glass-ply layer laminate wherein each glass ply has a thickness of 1.2 mm to 1.6 mm and each PVB layer has a thickness of 0.76 and a non-inventive two-ply layer laminate wherein each glass ply has a thickness of 2.1 – 2.3 mm and each PVB layer has a thickness of about 0.76 mm.
However, Fisher et al. teach a three-ply glass laminate comprising two three glass plies formed by float glass method, wherein the glass plies each of thickness 1.4 mm or less are separated by two acoustic-PVB interlayer layers each of thickness 0.76 mm, which is the same three-ply glass laminate structure comprising layers of similar thicknesses and composition of Applicant’s Figure 6 & 9. Therefore, as recited in Applicant’s claim 1, the three-ply glass laminate wherein each glass sheet has a thickness of 1.4 mm or less taught Fisher et al. must also inherently have greater sound transmission properties than a two-ply glass laminate wherein each glass layer has a thickness of 2.1 – 2.3 mm of the two-ply glass.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to claim 25, as discussed above for claim 1, Fisher et al. teach range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm, which includes the claimed range of 1.2 – 1.4 mm recited in claim 1.
With regard to claim 27, Fisher et al. do not discuss a comparative two-ply symmetric glazing laminate. However, as discussed above for claim 1, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Therefore, the three-ply symmetric glazing laminate taught by Fisher et al. having the same structural and compositional features as the three-ply symmetric glazing of Applicant’s inventive example would inherently have the same per unit weight difference.
With regard to claim 28, Fisher et al. do not explicitly teach the weight of a three-glass ply laminate.
However, as discussed above for claim 1, Fisher et al. teach the glass layers of the same composition and thickness (1.2 mm) as Applicant’s glass ply layers, the same number of glass ply layers, the same composition of the interlayers (acoustic PVB), the same number of acoustic PVB interlayers, and each PVB interlayer having the same thickness (0.76 mm). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the embodiment taught by Fisher of substantially identical structure and composition to inherently have the same weight per unit (lbs./ft2).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The inherency of the weight of a three-glass-ply laminate containing three plies of 1.2 mm thickness each, as taught by Fisher et al., is further evidenced by comparing Applicant’s baseline comparative two-ply (2.1 mm plies & 0.76 mm PVB layer) example of Table 1 to Fisher’s embodiment of comprising two-ply glass layers (2.0 mm plies & 0.76 mm PVB layer) of Table 2. Fisher’s two-glass-ply laminate (2.0 mm thickness of each glass ply) had a weight of about 2.207 lb/ft2 (110 cm x 50 cm laminate) (paragraph [0051]). This is only slightly lighter than Applicant’s two-glass ply laminate (2.1 mm thickness of glass ply) of 2.317 lb/ft2 (see Applicant’s Table 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would expect Fisher’s slightly lowered measured weight for the slightly slimmer laminate (a difference of 0.2 mm thickness of glass). Based on this comparison, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the three-ply symmetric laminate taught by Fisher et al. (each glass ply of 1.2 mm thickness and each of the two acoustic PVB layer of 0.76 mm thickness) to inherently have a weight of 2.481 lbs./sq. ft.
With regard to claim 29, as discussed above for claim 1, Fisher et al. teach each of the glass sheets may have equal thickness (symmetrical) and are thin, having a thickness within a range of about 0.5 mm to about 1.5 mm, preferably less than 1.4 mm. This range includes Applicant’s claimed thickness value of 1.2 mm.
With regard to claim 30 – 31, Fisher et al. do not discuss a comparative two-ply symmetric glazing laminate. However, as discussed above for claim 1, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
The three-ply symmetric glazing laminate taught by Fisher et al. having the same structural and compositional features as the three-ply symmetric glazing of Applicant’s inventive example would inherently have the same per unit weight difference. Additionally, it is common sense that the three-ply laminate (three glass plies) that has a total glass ply thickness of 3.6 mm would weigh less than a comparative two-ply laminate (two glass plies) that has a total glass ply thickness of 4.2 mm. This is further evidenced by Fisher et al, who teach weight savings associated with using thinner glass sheets (paragraph [0051] & Table 2).
With regard to claim 32, one of ordinary skill in the art would instantly recognize that a structural laminate of similar layer compositions except for comprising three 1.2 mm glass plies instead of two 2.1 mm glass plies will be lighter in weight because the structural laminate having a total of three 1.2 mm thinner glass plies has a total glass ply thickness of 3.6 mm, which is less than the total glass ply thickness of 4.2 mm for a comparative example containing two 2.1 glass plies.
With regard to claim 33, as discussed above for claim 1, Fisher et al. teach a three-ply glass laminate comprising two three glass plies formed by float glass method, wherein the glass plies each of thickness 1.4 mm or less are separated by two acoustic-PVB interlayer layers each of thickness 0.76 mm, which is the same three-ply glass laminate structure comprising layers of similar thicknesses and composition of Applicant’s Figure 6 & 9. Therefore, as recited in Applicant’s claim 1, the three-ply glass laminate wherein each glass sheet has a thickness of 1.4 mm or less taught Fisher et al. must also inherently have greater sound transmission properties than a two-ply glass laminate wherein each glass layer has a thickness of 2.1 – 2.3 mm of the two-ply glass.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 are the same arguments previously made in the marks filed April 10, 2025. The Examiner responded to these arguments in the non-final rejection July 17, 2025. As previously discussed, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781