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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 5, 2026, have been considered.
Applicant argues (labeled “(1)” in the Reply) that the curvature limitation is not taught or suggested. Applicant argues that Yamakawa (US 2018/0009294) does not teach Ry is 1,700 to 5,000 mm. This is not persuasive. Applicant may be mixing up the correlation between the claimed Rx and Ry with the R1 and R2 taught by Yamakawa.
Fig. 1B of Yamakawa is a cross-section taken along line A–A of Fig. 1A (paragraph [0021]). Fig. 1B illustrates radius R1. Radius R1 represents a radius along the vertical direction (Fig. 1A, along line A–A). This corresponds to the claimed Ry, or vertical curvature radius of the outer glass plate.
Similarly, Fig. 1C of Yamakawa is a cross-section taken along line B–B of Fig. 1A (paragraph [0021]). Fig. 1C illustrates radius R2. Radius R2 represents a radius along the horizontal direction (Fig. 1A, along line B–B). This corresponds to the claimed Rx, or horizontal curvature radius.
Paragraph [0060] of Yamakawa teaches:
In this case, the curvature radius R2 around the central line in the vertical direction is preferably 15000 mm or more, and the curvature radius R1 around the central line in the horizontal direction is preferably 5000 mm or more. Upper limits of these curvature radii are not particularly limited, but taking into account the shape of the vehicle, the upper limits are generally 20000 mm or less.
The below table visually organizes the relationship between the claimed elements and the features of Yamakawa:
Claimed Element
Corresponding Element of Yamakawa
Claimed Range
Range Taught by Yamakawa
Rx
R2
200–200,000 mm
15,000–20,000 mm
Ry
R1
1,700–5,000 mm
5,000–20,000 mm
As seen in the Table above, the values of Rx (R2) taught by Yamakawa fall completely within the claimed range, and the values of Ry (R1) taught by Yamakawa abut the claimed range. Where the ranges abut, MPEP § 2144.05 states that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (see also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range)). Yamakawa thus would have rendered obvious the claimed Ry (R1) value.
Applicant argues (labeled “(2)” in the Reply) that reliance on drawings cannot supply a missing numerical value. While this appears to be a correct statement, its application to this case is not persuasive. The drawings of Yamakawa were cited in an effort to further explain the correlation of the claimed Rx and Ry with the R1 and R2 taught by Yamakawa. The numerical values of R1 and R2 are found explicitly in the text of Yamakawa. The drawings merely provide further understanding of the orientation of those respective radii.
Applicant argues (labeled “(3)” and “(4)” in the Reply) regarding the other cited references and dependent claims. Because Yamakawa teaches the claimed Rx and Ry values, other prior art are not relied on for those teachings, and the arguments are moot.
Accordingly, the previous rejections are maintained, as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1–3, 5, 9, 10, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0009294 to Yamakawa et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0050415 to Kanki et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamakawa discloses (where the whole document appears relevant, focusing on the third embodiment described in paragraphs [0034]–[0061] and Figs. 4A–C) an automobile laminated glass (e.g., paragraph [0059], “the laminated glass . . . can be used for any of windows of the vehicle”) comprising: a curved outer glass plate 21; a curved inner glass 22 that is smaller than the outer glass plate and is disposed opposing the outer glass plate (Figs. 4A–C); and an intermediate film 24 that includes a functional layer (paragraph [0057], intermediate film may include a coated material for infrared light shielding function) and is disposed between the outer glass plate and the inner glass (Figs. 4B–C), wherein when a horizontal curvature radius of an opposing region of the outer glass plate where the outer glass plate opposes the inner glass plate is defined as Rx (mm) (e.g., R2, 10,000 to 20,000, paragraph [0060]), and a vertical curvature radius of the outer glass plate is defined as Ry (mm) (e.g., R1, 5,000 to 20,000, paragraph [0060]), Rx is 200 to 200,000 mm, and Ry is 1,700 to 5,000 mm (paragraph [0060]); and wherein at least a portion of the inner glass is located inward of a peripheral edge of the outer glass plate (Figs. 4B–C; paragraphs [0022], [0028], and [0076]).
Yamakawa does not explicitly disclose wherein the functional layer is formed by a film that is heat-shrinkable, and disposed in the intermediate film.
Kanki discloses a laminated glass, such as could be used in a vehicle, and teaches using a heat-shrinkable functional film sandwiched between outer layers in order to suppress shrinkage during manufacturing and prevent orange peel (paragraph [0358]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamakawa such that the functional layer is formed by a film that is heat-shrinkable, and disposed in the intermediate film, as suggested by Kanki, in order to suppress shrinkage during manufacturing and prevent orange peel.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious wherein 1/Rx*1/Ry*10−6 is defined as a curvature index, the curvature index is 2.4 or less (where the values taught in paragraph [0060] result in a value less than 2.4; also where Yamakawa teaches what appears to be a narrower range than what is described in paragraph [0053] of Applicant’s specification).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious wherein the curvature index in the opposing region is 1.3 or less (paragraph [0060] of Yamakawa).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious the automobile laminated glass according to claim 1, including at least one protruding portion curved to an outer side of a vehicle when the automobile laminated glass is attached to the vehicle (e.g., paragraph [0059] of Yamakawa).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious (referencing Yamakawa) wherein the intermediate film is formed by a plurality of sheet members (e.g., paragraph [0058], “intermediate film may have a multi-layered structure”), and the plurality of sheet members are arranged spaced apart from each other (where Yamakawa appears silent regarding spacing, but selecting a configuration that would yield predictable results would have been obvious, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious results).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious wherein the inner glass is formed by a glass plate (glass plate 22, paragraph [0035] of Yamakawa).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious wherein the automobile laminated glass is a rear glass panel, a rear quarter glass panel, or a side glass panel (e.g., paragraph [0059] of Yamakawa).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious wherein the outer glass plate has a thickness of 1.6 mm to 4 mm (paragraph [0041] of Yamakawa), and the inner glass has a thickness of 0.3 to 2.3 mm (paragraph [0042] of Yamakawa).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki would have rendered obvious (referencing Yamakawa) wherein the intermediate film includes a pair of the adhesion layers, and the functional layer is disposed between the pair of adhesion layers (e.g., where paragraph [0058] suggests that the intermediate layer may be formed of a plurality of layers, paragraph [0055] suggests adhesion as one of the purposes of the intermediate layer, and paragraph [0057] suggests a separate functional layer associated with the intermediate/adhesion layers, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to order these layers in the claimed manner, at least in view of the limited number of identifiable solutions, each yielding predictable results, e.g., MPEP § 2144.04).
Claims 6–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa and Kanki, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0299752 to Sadakane et al.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Yamakawa and Kanki does not explicitly disclose wherein the functional layer is a dimming film.
Sadakane discloses laminated glass, and teaches that an internal functional layer can include a dimming film (e.g., paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamakawa and Kanki such that the functional layer is a dimming film, as suggested by Sadakane, as a suitable configuration for a functional layer (e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Yamakawa, Kanki, and Sadakane would have rendered obvious wherein the dimming film is a PDLC-type or SPD-type film (where using known configurations would have been obvious, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unobvious or unexpected results from the use of the known types of dimming films, e.g., MPEP §§ 2144.06–07).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Yamakawa, Kanki, and Sadakane would have rendered obvious wherein a terminal for applying a voltage to the dimming film is disposed in a lower end portion of the inner glass plate (where selecting the location for required components would have been obvious as a matter of design choice, taking into account known considerations, such as occluding the components, and uniform power delivery, absent evidence of criticality or otherwise unexpected or unobvious results).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa and Kanki, in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0018954 to Ogawa (relying, if necessary, on the same subject matter disclosed in priority JP application 2017/062000, which published as JP 2018-162044 on October 18, 2018, using the corresponding US as the translation).
Regarding Claim 11, Yamakawa discloses wherein the outer glass plate includes a window region that allows passage of light from outside a vehicle, and the inner glass is attached so as to cover the window region (Figs. 4A–C).
The combination of Yamakawa and Kanki does not explicitly disclose a blocking region in which a blocking layer is laminated surrounding the window region so as to block the passage of light from outside the vehicle.
Ogawa discloses a laminated vehicle window, and teaches a mask layer 2 (blocking region) surrounding a window region to block passage of light from the outside of the vehicle (Fig. 1 and paragraphs [0111], [0112], and [0114]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the device of Yamakawa and Kanki to include a blocking region in which a blocking layer is laminated surrounding the window region so as to block the passage of light from outside the vehicle, as suggested by Ogawa, to block the view from inside or outside the vehicle at the periphery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN CROCKETT whose telephone number is (571)270-3183. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am to 5pm.
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, Michael Caley can be reached on 571-272-2286. 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.
/RYAN CROCKETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871