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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
Applicant’s amendments filed on 11/21/2025 have been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 5 and 8-29 are currently pending
Claims 8, 16 and 27 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 1, 2, 5, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. (US 5,589,272) in view of Fisher et al. (US 2012/0094084 A1), Davis (US 2007/0027271 A1) and Tanuma (US 5,759,698 A).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 5 and 28, Braun discloses a transparent glass/plastic material composite pane comprising at least one transparent plastic pane and at least one glass pane and an adhesion-promoting intermediate layer between the glass and plastic pane (abstract) and specifically having the structure of a glass pane (first glass layer), intermediate layer (first interlayer), plastic pane (polymer layer), intermediate layer (second interlayer), and glass pane (second glass layer) (col. 3. Lines 20-30 and Figure). The intermediate layer has a thickness of 0.38 to 0.6 mm which lies inside the claimed range (col. 3, lines 25-27). The glass panes have a thickness of 30 to 1000 microns (0.03 to 1 mm), particularly 300 to 700 microns (0.3 to 0.7 mm) which lies inside the claimed range (abstract and col. 1, lines 50-54). The plastic pane is polycarbonate or polyester carbonate and has a thickness of 3 to 5 mm which lies inside the claimed range (col. 1, lines 61-67). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Braun discloses the glass pane being chemically hardened to have a penetration depth of 100 microns or less which overlaps the claimed range (col. 2, lines 35-46)
Braun does not disclose the surface compression stress for the glass panes.
Fisher discloses a glass laminate which includes at least one chemically-strengthened glass sheet with a compressive stress of at least 300 MPa which overlaps the claimed range and a depth of at least 50 microns (abstract and [0029]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the chemically hardened glass panes in Braun to be strengthened to a compressive stress of at least 300 MPa and a depth of at least 50 microns as taught in Fisher to have a glass pane with low weight because thinner glass can be used, high impact resistance and sound damping properties (Fisher, [0002], [0049], [0051], [0060]-[0061], [0064], and [0066]).
Braun and Fisher do not specifically teach the polymer layer is a copolymer comprising polysiloxane of Claim 1. Braun does teach the polymer layer can be a polycarbonate plastic material (Claim 7 of Braun).
Davis teaches a polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer suitable for use in windows and vehicles purposes in a multilayer laminate (Paragraph 0037, 0224, 0143). Davis teaches the copolymer formula and composition ranges that overlap the ranges recited in Claim 1. (Claim 1, 4, and 20 of Davis; Paragraph 0161). Davis teaches this polymer provides the advantage of being thermostable, weatherable and good flow characteristics, making it easier to process, as well as good properties in high temperatures and good ductility in low temperatures (Paragraph 0003, 0011, 0037). Thus, it would have been to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the polysiloxane-polycarbonate copolymer as claimed and taught by Davis as the plastic pane in Braun for improved properties.
Braun teaches the interlayers can be PVB (Column 2, Lines 1-7). Braun, Fisher and Davis do not specifically teach the interlayer is a poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) functionalized with maleic anhydride, where the vinyl acetate content is 20 to 80 wt%.
Tanuma teaches a polymeric adhesive interlayer composition for laminated glass sheets (Abstract), where the polymeric adhesive is a replacement for PVB. (Column 1, Lines 35-62). Tanuma teaches this interlayer composition comprises EVA functionalized with maleic anhydride with a vinyl acetate content of 10 to 50 wt%. (Claim 3 of Tanuma). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Tanuma does not require any HALS. Tanuma teaches this interlayer composition provides the advantage of improved impact resistance and reduced shattering of the glass laminate layers. (Column 1, Lines 36-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed interlayer composition taught by Tanuma as the interlayer composition to replace PVB in Braun for the improved impact resistance and reduced shattering.
Claims 9-15, 17, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun, Fisher, Davis, and Tanuma as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Van Den Bergen (US 2011/0129680 A1).
Regarding Claims 9-15, 17, 24, Braun does not disclose including a flame retardant in the plastic pane, specifically one of the organophosphorus compounds as set forth in the claims where the effective amount of phosphorus is 0.1 to 10 wt% or 0.3 to 0.8 wt%. Davis teaches the polymer material can include flame retardants. (Claim 22 of Davis).
Van Den Bergen discloses fire retardants used to make fire resistant glass laminates comprising a flame retardant curable composition and a flame retardant (abstract) where the flame retardant includes triphenylphosphate, triscresylphosphate, resorcinol bis(diphenyl phosphate), and bisphenol A bis(diphenyl phosphate) ([0023]) which are considered to satisfy aromatic organophosphate compounds as set forth in instant claims 11-15. The amount of flame retardant should be 10 to 30 wt% ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add the flame retardant taught in Van Den Bergen into the plastic pane in Braun in view of Fisher in an amount of 10 to 30 wt% to give the laminate better fire resistance (Van Den Bergen, [0001] and [0006]).
Regarding the specific amount of flame retardant to achieve a desired level of phosphorus, the instant Specification discloses the amount of flame retardant should be 0.1 to 30 parts by weight in the composition (instant Specification, [00161]). Given the amount of flame retardant, 10 to 30 wt%, added in Braun in view of Bagby, Fisher, Davis and Van Den Bergen lies inside the range disclosed in the instant Specification, and given the same flame retardant is used as claimed (see discussion above), it would be expected that the amount phosphorus from the flame retardant would also lie with the claimed ranges. Further, to the extent this is not true, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that the amount of flame retardant and resulting amount of phosphorus from the flame retardant can be varied depending on the desired level of fire resistance. Wherein the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in amount of phosphorus involves only routine skill in the art, absent a showing of criticality. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claims 19-23, Braun, Fisher, Davis, Tanuma and Van Den Bergen does not disclose the article satisfying any of the claimed properties. However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Here, Braun in view of Fisher, Davis, Tanuma and Van Den Bergen is considered to set forth the same article as claimed including adding a flame retardant for fire repellency so would be expected to satisfy the properties in claims 19-23. Further, to the extent this is not true, Van Den Bergen teaches adding flame retardant to improve fire resistance (see discussion above). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to add flame retardants as necessary to achieve the desired fire resistance properties as claimed.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun, Fisher Davis, and Tanuma as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Smith et al. (US 2005/0118401 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Braun does not disclose one or more decorative layers.
Claim 18 contains a limitation, by methods including but not limited to screen printing, laser marking, rotor gravure printing, pad printing, digital ink jet printing, hydrographics, laser etching, laser printing, and transfer printing, which defines a product by how the product was made. Thus claim 18 has a product-by-process limitation. For purposes of examination, product-by-process limitations are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a decorative layer. Braun in view of Fisher and Smith discloses such a product as discussed below.
Smith discloses a decorative glass laminate comprising a rigid interlayer bearing a printed image that has been printed onto at least one of the interlayer surfaces (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for one of the interlayers in Braun to be printed with an image as taught in Smith to give the glass laminate a decorative effect (Smith, abstract and page 1).
Claims 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltesiz et al. (US 2008/0047208 A1) in view of Braun, Fisher, Tanuma and Frank (CH 640302 A5).
Regarding Claim 25-26, Soltesiz teaches a double window comprising a first glass pane and a first glass pane with a gap separating the first and second panes and a frame surrounding the edge of the first and second glass pane. (Fig. 3; Abstract). Soltesiz does not teach the claimed structure of the first and second panes.
Braun discloses a transparent glass/plastic material composite pane comprising at least one transparent plastic pane and at least one glass pane and an adhesion-promoting intermediate layer between the glass and plastic pane (abstract) and specifically having the structure of a glass pane (first glass layer), intermediate layer (first interlayer), plastic pane (polymer layer), intermediate layer (second interlayer), and glass pane (second glass layer) (col. 3. Lines 20-30 and Figure). The intermediate layer is polyurethane with a thickness of 0.38 to 0.6 mm which lies inside the claimed range (col. 3, lines 25-27). The glass panes have a thickness of 30 to 1000 microns (0.03 to 1 mm), particularly 300 to 700 microns (0.3 to 0.7 mm) which lies inside the claimed range (abstract and col. 1, lines 50-54). The plastic pane is polycarbonate or polyester carbonate and has a thickness of 3 to 5 mm which lies inside the claimed range (col. 1, lines 61-67). Braun teaches the glass layers can be chemically strengthened. (col. 2, lines 35-46)
Braun teaches the advantage of the claimed laminated glass panes stronger panes at a lighter weight while still maintaining the chemical resistance and abrasion resistance of regular glass panes. (Column 1-2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed glass panes as the panes in Soltesiz for improved benefits of multi-material panes of Braun.
Thus, the combination of Soltesiz and Braun would teach a first pane comprising a first pane comprising a first glass layer is comprised of a thin, chemically strengthened glass, a first interlayer located in between the first glass layer and a first polymer layer; wherein the first polymer layer comprises a polyester or a polycarbonate, and a second interlayer located in between a second glass layer and the first polymer layer and a second pane comprising a third glass layer, wherein the third glass layer is comprised of a thin, chemically strengthened glass, a third interlayer located in between the third glass layer and a second polymer layer; wherein the second polymer layer comprises a polyester or a polycarbonate and a fourth interlayer located in between a fourth glass layer and the second polymer layer.
Braun teaches the glass panes have a thickness of 30 to 1000 microns (0.03 to 1 mm), particularly 300 to 700 microns (0.3 to 0.7 mm) which lies inside the claimed range (abstract and col. 1, lines 50-54). The plastic pane is polycarbonate or polyester carbonate and has a thickness of 3 to 5 mm which lies inside the claimed range (col. 1, lines 61-67). This allows for the first polymer layer to be thicker than the first glass layer and the second polymer layer is thicker than the third glass layer.
Braun discloses the glass pane being chemically hardened to have a penetration depth of 100 microns or less which overlaps the claimed range (col. 2, lines 35-46)
Fisher discloses a glass laminate which includes at least one chemically-strengthened glass sheet with a compressive stress of at least 300 MPa which overlaps the claimed range and a depth of at least 50 microns (abstract and [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for the chemically hardened glass panes in Braun to be strengthened to a compressive stress of at least 300 MPa and a depth of at least 50 micron as taught in Fisher to have a glass pane with low weight because thinner glass can be used, high impact resistance and sound damping properties (Fisher, [0002], [0049], [0051], [0060]-[0061], [0064], and [0066]).
Soltesiz, Braun and Fisher do not specifically teach the interlayer is a poly(ethylene-co-vinyl acetate) functionalized with maleic anhydride.
Tanuma teaches a polymeric adhesive interlayer composition for laminated glass sheets (Abstract), where the polymeric adhesive is a replacement for PVB. (Column 1, Lines 35-62). Tanuma teaches this interlayer composition comprises EVA functionalized with maleic anhydride (Claim 3 of Tanuma). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Tanuma does not require any HALS. Tanuma teaches this interlayer composition provides the advantage of improved impact resistance and reduced shattering of the glass laminate layers. (Column 1, Lines 36-41). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed interlayer composition taught by Tanuma as the interlayer composition to replace PVB in Braun for the improved impact resistance and reduced shattering.
Soltesiz, Braun, Fisher, and Tanuma do not specifically teach the first pane comprises a different thickness than the second pane.
Frank teaches an insulated glazing comprise two panes, where a first pane has a different thickness than a second pane. (Page 2). Frank teaches having this different thickness allows for better tuning of thermal and acoustic insulation for the resulting insulated glazing. (Page 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the first and second pane have different thicknesses in Soltesiz, Braun, Fisher, and Tanuma as taught by Frank for better insulative properties.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soltesiz, Braun, Fisher, Tanuma, and Frank, in further view of Bagby (US 4,911,743)
Regarding Claim 29, Braun does not specifically teach the first glass layer has been acid etched to reduce a number, a size, and a severity of flaws in on or more surfaces of the first glass layer.
Bagby teaches improving glass by acid etching the surfaces of glass (Column 5-6). Bagby teaches acid etching smooths out flaws in the glass surface, reducing the severity of flaws, and removes a thin layer of glass, which will reduce number and size of the flaws. (Column 5, Lines 45-67). Bagby teaches this acid-etching process will improves the breaking stress (strength) of the resulting glass. (Column 2, Lines 56-65). Bagby then teaches the glass can be further processed with chemical tempering. (Abstract). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to acid etch the surfaces of the glass in Braun to improve the breaking stress of the glass as taught by Bagby.
Response to Arguments
The prior rejections have been fully considered
A new ground of rejection has been made in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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 on (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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781