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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartenaer et al (WO 2018115090) in view of Derda et al (JP 2011504431) and Crumbach et al (DE 10249992 C1).
Regarding claim 1, Sartenaer discloses vehicle composite pane, comprising:
a first pane (Fig. 2 #11 first sheet of glass) and a second pane (Fig. 2 #12 second sheet of glass), which are joined to one another via at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 2 #20 thermoplastic interlayer), and an inlay element at least comprising an opaque layer (Fig. 2 #21 opaque zone) that has at least one cutout (Fig. 2 #22 non-opaque zone).
However, Sartenaer does not teach an inlay element (a arranged between the thermoplastic intermediate layer and one of the first and second panes and (b) in contact with the thermoplastic intermediate layer, a transparent substrate layer, and a transparent electrically heatable layer, wherein the inlay element is arranged between the first pane and the second pane, wherein the opaque layer and the transparent electrically heatable layer have the same external dimensions.
Nonetheless, Derda in the same field of endeavor being heated glass panes teaches a transparent substrate layer (Fig. 2 #18 ply of PVB), and a transparent electrically heatable layer (Fig. 1 #16 wire; Abstract ---" The wires can be in the form of capacitive sensing plates, inductive coupling loops, heating elements, antennas and / or RFID tags.”), wherein the inlay element is arranged between the first pane (Fig. 2 #11 glass pane) and the second pane (Fig. 2 #12 glass pane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer by incorporating the transparent substrate layer and transparent electrically heatable layer as taught by Derda for the purpose of providing a heating element for anti-icing.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the opaque layer and the transparent electrically heatable layer having the same external dimensions, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Furthermore, Crumbach in the same field of endeavor being heated glass panes teaches an inlay element (Fig. 1 #6 opaque edge strip) (a arranged between the thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 1 #1.3 intermediate layer) and one of the first (Fig. 1 #1.2 rigid pane) and second panes and (b) in contact with the thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 1 #1.3 intermediate layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda by incorporating the arrangement of the inlay element as taught by Crumbach for the benefit of concealing a solder joint or contact surface to the outside.
Regarding claim 2, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein in the inlay element, the transparent substrate layer is arranged between the opaque layer and the transparent electrically heatable layer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlay element, the transparent substrate layer being arranged between the opaque layer and the transparent electrically heatable layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 3, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein in the inlay element, the transparent electrically heatable layer is arranged between the transparent substrate layer and the opaque layer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlay element, the transparent electrically heatable layer being arranged between the transparent substrate layer and the opaque layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 4, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein in the inlay element, the transparent substrate layer is arranged completely within the at least one cutout of the opaque layer, and the transparent electrically heatable layer is arranged, over an entire surface, directly adjacent the opaque layer and the transparent substrate layer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlay element, the transparent substrate layer being arranged completely within the at least one cutout of the opaque layer, and the transparent electrically heatable layer being arranged, over an entire surface, directly adjacent the opaque layer and the transparent substrate layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 5, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein in the inlay element, the transparent substrate layer, and the transparent electrically heatable layer are implemented in one piece as an electrically heatable transparent substrate layer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlay element, the transparent substrate layer, and the transparent electrically heatable layer being implemented in one piece as an electrically heatable transparent substrate layer, since it has been held that forming one piece of an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 6, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein in the inlay element, the opaque layer, and the transparent electrically heatable layer are implemented in one piece as an electrically heatable opaque layer that has the at least one cutout; and the transparent substrate layer is arranged, over an entire surface, directly adjacent the electrically heatable opaque layer and the at least one cutout or is arranged completely within the at least one cutout of the electrically heatable opaque layer.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inlay element, the opaque layer, and the transparent electrically heatable layer being implemented in one piece as an electrically heatable opaque layer that has the at least one cutout, since it has been held that forming one piece of an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the transparent substrate layer being arranged, over an entire surface, directly adjacent the electrically heatable opaque layer and the at least one cutout or being arranged completely within the at least one cutout of the electrically heatable opaque layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 7, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sartenaer teaches wherein the at least one cutout is a sensor window for an optical sensor (Abstract ---" According to the invention, this type of glazing comprises at least one thermoplastic interlayer (20) including a zone that is opaque to visible wavelengths (21) and that extends at least in the zone surrounding the optical sensor (51).”; Fig. 5 #53 slot is the same as The Fig. 2 #22 non-opaque zone).
Regarding claim 10, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Derda teaches wherein the transparent electrically heatable layer is an electrically heatable coating, a carbon- containing layer, or a metallic layer, or contains or is made of an electrically conductive polymer (Description of Embodiments para. 8 ---" The conductive core of each wire can be made of a metal, metal alloy or metal oxide material.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach by incorporating the transparent electrically heatable layer made of metal as taught by Derda for the purpose of providing a heatable material for anti-icing.
Regarding claim 17, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the transparent substrate layer, the transparent electrically heatable layer, and the opaque layer with the cutout have the same external dimensions.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the transparent substrate layer, the transparent electrically heatable layer, and the opaque layer with the cutout having the same external dimensions, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Regarding claim 18, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach wherein the transparent substrate layer, the transparent electrically heatable layer, and the opaque layer with the cutout have the same external dimensions.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the transparent substrate layer, the transparent electrically heatable layer, and the opaque layer with the cutout having the same external dimensions, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984),
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartenaer et al (WO 2018115090) in view of Derda et al (JP 2011504431) and Crumbach et al (DE 10249992 C1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schall et al (US 2017/0265253).
Regarding claim 8, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the opaque layer contains or is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyethylene (PE).
Nonetheless, Schall teaches wherein the opaque layer contains or is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyethylene (PE) ([0022] lines 1-12 ---" Multiple panes are bonded to one another via at least one intermediate layer. The intermediate layer preferably contains at least one thermoplastic plastic, preferably polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), and/or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The thermoplastic intermediate layer can, however, also contain, for example, polyurethane (PU), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylate, polyethylene (PE), polycarbonate (PC), polymethylmethacrylate, polyvinylchloride, poly acetate resin, casting resins, fluorinated ethylene propylene copolymers, polyvinyl fluoride, and/or ethylene tetrachloroethylene copolymers, and/or copolymers or mixtures thereof.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach by incorporating the opaque layer as taught by Schall for the purpose of providing a bondable layer for the composite pane.
Regarding claim 9, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the transparent substrate layer includes a thermoplastic or a thermosetting plastic or is a glass layer that has a thickness less than or equal to 0.5 mm.
Nonetheless, Schall teaches wherein the transparent substrate layer includes a thermoplastic or a thermosetting plastic or is a glass layer that has a thickness less than or equal to 0.5 mm ([0022] lines 12-16 ---" The thermoplastic intermediate layer can be formed by one or even by a plurality of thermoplastic films arranged one above another, wherein the thickness of one thermoplastic film is preferably from 0.25 mm to 1 mm, typically 0.38 mm or 0.76 mm.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach by incorporating the opaque layer as taught by Schall for the purpose of providing a bondable layer for the composite pane.
Regarding claim 12, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the opaque layer or the electrically heatable opaque layer is, at least in sections, transparent to infrared radiation with a wavelength in the range between 800 nm and 1100 nm.
Nonetheless, Schall teaches the opaque layer made from the same materials as claimed. Therefore the opaque layer as taught by Sartenaer in view of Derda, Crumbach, and Schall would exhibit the claimed behaviors of the opaque layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach by incorporating the opaque layer as taught by Schall for the purpose of providing a bondable layer for the composite pane.
Regarding claim 13, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sartenaer teaches wherein the vehicle composite pane is a windshield that is mirror-symmetrical along a center line, and the inlay element is arranged on the center line in the vicinity of the upper edge of the windshield (Shown in the figure below.).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Sartenaer discloses method for producing a vehicle composite pane according to claim 1, the method comprising:
(a) providing a first pane (Fig. 2 #11 first sheet of glass), a second pane (Fig. 2 #12 second sheet of glass), at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 2 #20 thermoplastic interlayer), and an inlay element, at least comprising an opaque layer (Fig. 2 #21 opaque zone) that has at least one cutout (Fig. 2 #22 non-opaque zone);
(b) arranging the at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 2 #20 thermoplastic interlayer) and the inlay element between the first pane (Fig. 2 #11 first sheet of glass) and the second pane (Fig. 2 #12 second sheet of glass) (The arrangement is shown in figure 2.);
and (c) joining the first pane to the second pane via the at least one thermoplastic intermediate layer by lamination (Abstract).
However, Sartenaer does not teach a transparent substrate layer and a transparent electrically heatable layer.
Nonetheless, Derda teaches a transparent substrate layer (Fig. 2 #18 ply of PVB) and a transparent electrically heatable layer (Fig. 1 #16 wire; Abstract ---" The wires can be in the form of capacitive sensing plates, inductive coupling loops, heating elements, antennas and / or RFID tags.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sartenaer by incorporating the transparent substrate layer and transparent electrically heatable layer as taught by Derda for the purpose of providing a heating element for anti-icing.
Regarding claim 15, Sartenaer in view of Derda teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 14), and Sartenaer in view of Derda teaches wherein the vehicle composite pane is comprising forming a windshield of a vehicle. (See the rejection of claim 14. Both Sartenaer and Derda describe vehicle windshields.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartenaer et al (WO 2018115090) in view of Derda et al (JP 2011504431) and Crumbach et al (DE 10249992 C1) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Bressand et al (US 2012/0103960).
Regarding claim 11, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), but does not teach wherein the electrically heatable transparent substrate layer or the electrically heatable opaque layer contains or is made of an electrically conductive polymer.
Nonetheless, Bressand teaches wherein the electrically heatable transparent substrate layer or the electrically heatable opaque layer contains or is made of an electrically conductive polymer (Claim 7 --- The pane according to claim 1, wherein the heatable coating and/or the heating wires contain comprise fluorine doped tin dioxide, tin doped indium oxide, silver, copper, tin, gold, aluminum, iron, tungsten, chromium, or alloys thereof and/or a conductive organic polymer.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach by incorporating the transparent electrically heatable layer made of metal as taught by Bressand for the purpose of providing a heatable material for anti-icing.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartenaer et al (WO 2018115090) in view of Derda et al (JP 2011504431) and Crumbach et al (DE 10249992 C1) as applied to claim 8, further in view of Schall et al (US 2017/0265253).
Regarding claim 16, Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach teaches the composite pane as appears above (see the rejection of claim 8), but does not teach wherein the opaque layer contains or is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET).
Nonetheless, Schall teaches wherein the opaque layer contains or is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) or polyethylene (PE) ([0022] lines 1-12 ---" Multiple panes are bonded to one another via at least one intermediate layer. The intermediate layer preferably contains at least one thermoplastic plastic, preferably polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), and/or polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The thermoplastic intermediate layer can, however, also contain, for example, polyurethane (PU), polypropylene (PP), polyacrylate, polyethylene (PE), polycarbonate (PC), polymethylmethacrylate, polyvinylchloride, poly acetate resin, casting resins, fluorinated ethylene propylene copolymers, polyvinyl fluoride, and/or ethylene tetrachloroethylene copolymers, and/or copolymers or mixtures thereof.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composite pane of Sartenaer in view of Derda and Crumbach by incorporating the opaque layer as taught by Schall for the purpose of providing a bondable layer for the composite pane.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights