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 .
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Gobain (DE 20-2016-008-420) in view of Cleary et al. (US 2015/0132538), Li et al. (US 2003/0077995), and Sjoberg et al. (WO 2019/239013).
Regarding claim 1, Saint-Gobain teaches a composite pane, or laminated glasses, for vehicles (Paragraph [0001]; [0014]). The composite panes include, in order: an outer pane, a first laminating film, a foil, a second laminating film and an inner pane (Paragraph [0013]). The laminating films may be PVB (Paragraph [0020]). The outer and inner panes have thicknesses of 2.1 mm (“wherein a thickness of the first non-tempered glass plate is the same as a thickness of the second non-tempered glass plate”) (Paragraph [0028]l; [0041]). The outer and inner panes may also be non-tempered glass (“wherein the laminated glass comprises a first non-tempered glass plate, a second non-tempered glass plate and an interlayer between the first non-tempered glass plate and the second non-tempered glass plate”) (Paragraph [0030]).
Saint-Gobain is silent with respect to the laminated glass having a breaking stress measured by ISO 1288-5 (2016) of 100 to 600 MPa in a region greater than or equal to 90% of a see-through region and one of the surfaces of the laminated glass having cracks.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the methods and materials of forming the laminated glass plates such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that substantially identical materials and methods would result in substantially identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the materials of the laminated glasses of applicant’s invention appear to be two sheets of non-tempered glass with a polymeric interlayer between the two (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0017]-[0022]). The methods of forming the laminated glasses includes laminating the glass plates with the polymeric interlayer between the two and then performing a strength leveling process to the glass layers of the laminates which includes applying a tool, a liquid or a powder to the glasses of the laminate (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0037]-[0047]).
As discussed above, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses with two non-tempered glass plates and a layer of PVB between the glass plates.
Saint-Gobain is silent with respect to the features of the strength levelling process.
Cleary teaches glass laminates having a high or maximized impact resistance to impacts on an external side of the laminate in order to resist the impact of stones, hail or vandals, for example, while lowering impact resistance on an internal side of the glass laminate (Paragraph [0006]). The impact resistance is improved through the introduction of flaws introduced in the outer surface of the inner sheet wherein the flaws are provided in substantially the entire area of the surface or in an entire area of the surface except for a peripheral portion of the surface (Paragraph [0010]). The flaws are controlled flaws which are preferably formed from a laser, but may be formed from mechanical methods such as abrading (Paragraph [0031]).
Li teaches a method of chemical mechanical polishing which provides glass articles, such as those in automobiles, with improved properties including planarized surface finishes by using a liquid medium with abrasive particles (Paragraphs [0003]; [0027]; [0032]).
Sjoberg teaches a method of surface reconditioning and finishing of top coats such as glass by abrading with an abrading plate (Pg. 1, Lines 6-7). The abrading method with the abrading plate includes a workpiece facing layer with abrasive grains between the workpiece facing layer and the workpiece in order to provide a more uniform workpiece, devoid of distinctive scratches, thus allowing for an easier polish (Pg. 2, Lines 9-19; Pg. 3, Lines 11-15). The abrasive grains may be silicon carbide and the workpiece facing layer may be a metal or a polymer and the workpiece may be hardened glass (Pg. 2, Lines 21-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form laminated glasses of Saint-Gobain such that they are provided with improved impact resistance to impacts on an external side of the laminate in order to resist the impact of stones, hail or vandals by introducing controlled flaws, equivalent to the claimed cracks, to the outer surface of the inner glass layer by means of abrasion.
It further would have been obvious to form the flaws via abrasion such that they are subjected to a chemical mechanical polishing process, which is utilized on automobiles, in order to provide a planarized surface as taught by Li and wherein that polishing is performed with an abrading pad having abrasive grains of silicon carbide in order to provide a more uniform surface as taught by Sjoberg.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the abrasion method for improving impact resistance taught by Cleary and Sjoberg is identical to the strength levelling process described in applicant’s specification and is utilized for the same purpose, being providing a more uniform surface when fine cracks are present in the laminated glasses (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0047]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the methods and materials of the laminated glasses taught by the combination of Saint-Gobain, Cleary, Li and Sjoberg are identical and would result in having identical properties as well, including, but not limited to having a breaking stress measured by ISO 1288-5 (2016) of 100 to 600 MPa in a region greater than or equal to 90% of a see-through region.
Regarding claim 2, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the glasses are formed from the same methods and materials as applicant’s inventions resulting in identical properties including, as required by claim 2, “a percentage of a region with the breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of greater than 600 MPa is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.”
Regarding claim 3, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, the glasses are formed from the same methods and materials as applicant’s inventions resulting in identical properties including, as required by claim 3, “a percentage of a region with the breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of less than 100 MPa is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.”
Regarding claims 4-5, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, laminated glasses are taught to have identical properties to that of applicant’s invention.
The limitations regarding the breaking stress being measured by applying a load from the interior (claim 4) or the exterior (claim 5) are product-by-process limitations which do not further limit the products of claim 1. MPEP 2113: It has been held that “[e]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, Saint-Gobain teaches the final products of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 6, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, laminated glasses are taught to have identical properties to that of applicant’s invention.
Furthermore, the limitation of the breaking stress being measured in a state before mounting the laminated glass to a vehicle is a product-by-process limitations which does not further limit the products of claim 1. MPEP 2113: It has been held that “[e]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, Saint-Gobain teaches the final product of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 1. As discussed above, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses being suitable for vehicles.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckminster (US 2,101,057) in view of Saint-Gobain (DE 20-2016-008-420) in view of Cleary et al. (US 2015/0132538), Li et al. (US 2003/0077995), and Sjoberg et al. (WO 2019/239013).
Regarding claim 8, Buckminster teaches a motor vehicle with windows (Pg. 1, Lines 1-2; Pg. 2, Lines 14-15).
Buckminster is silent with respect to the windows comprising the laminated glasses of claim 1.
Saint-Gobain, Li and Sjoberg teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 1 which are taught to be suitable for windshields and have a more uniform surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the windows of the motor vehicle of Buckminster with the laminated glasses of Saint-Gobain, Li and Sjoberg which are suitable for windshields and have a more uniform surface.
Claims 16, 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Gobain (DE 20-2016-008-420) in view of Cleary et al. (US 2015/0132538), Li et al. (US 2003/0077995), and Sjoberg et al. (WO 2019/239013).
Regarding claim 16, Saint-Gobain teaches a composite pane, or laminated glasses, for vehicles (Paragraph [0001]; [0014]). The composite panes include, in order: an outer pane, a first laminating film, a foil, a second laminating film and an inner pane (Paragraph [0013]). The laminating films may be PVB (Paragraph [0020]). The outer and inner panes have thicknesses of 2.1 mm (“wherein a thickness of the first non-tempered glass plate is the same as a thickness of the second non-tempered glass plate”) (Paragraph [0028]l; [0041]). The outer and inner panes may also be non-tempered glass (“wherein the laminated glass comprises a first non-tempered glass plate, a second non-tempered glass plate and an interlayer between the first non-tempered glass plate and the second non-tempered glass plate”) (Paragraph [0030]).
Saint-Gobain is silent with respect to the laminated glass having a breaking stress measured by ISO 1288-5 (2016) of 100 to 600 MPa in a region greater than or equal to 90% of a see-through region and a second region with a breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of greater than 600 MPa wherein the second region is a reduced high-stress region such that a percentage of the second region is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.
However, this property appears to be dependent on the methods and materials of forming the laminated glass plates such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that substantially identical materials and methods would result in substantially identical properties. MPEP 2112.01: 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the materials of the laminated glasses of applicant’s invention appear to be two sheets of non-tempered glass with a polymeric interlayer between the two (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0017]-[0022]). The methods of forming the laminated glasses includes laminating the glass plates with the polymeric interlayer between the two and then performing a strength leveling process to the glass layers of the laminates which includes applying a tool, a liquid or a powder to the glasses of the laminate (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0037]-[0047]).
As discussed above, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses with two non-tempered glass plates and a layer of PVB between the glass plates.
Saint-Gobain is silent with respect to the features of the strength levelling process.
Cleary teaches glass laminates having a high or maximized impact resistance to impacts on an external side of the laminate in order to resist the impact of stones, hail or vandals , for example, while lowering impact resistance on an internal side of the glass laminate (Paragraph [0006]). The impact resistance is improved through the introduction of flaws introduced in the outer surface of the inner sheet wherein the flaws are provided in substantially the entire area of the surface or in an entire area of the surface except for a peripheral portion of the surface (Paragraph [0010]). The flaws are controlled flaws which are preferably formed from a laser, but may be formed from mechanical methods such as abrading (Paragraph [0031]).
Li teaches a method of chemical mechanical polishing which provides glass articles, such as those in automobiles, with improved properties including planarized surface finishes by using a liquid medium with abrasive particles (Paragraphs [0003]; [0027]; [0032]).
Sjoberg teaches a method of surface reconditioning and finishing of top coats such as glass by abrading with an abrading plate (Pg. 1, Lines 6-7). The abrading method with the abrading plate includes a workpiece facing layer with abrasive grains between the workpiece facing layer and the workpiece in order to provide a more uniform workpiece, devoid of distinctive scratches, thus allowing for an easier polish (Pg. 2, Lines 9-19; Pg. 3, Lines 11-15). The abrasive grains may be silicon carbide and the workpiece facing layer may be a metal or a polymer and the workpiece may be hardened glass (Pg. 2, Lines 21-34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form laminated glasses of Saint-Gobain such that they are provided with improved impact resistance to impacts on an external side of the laminate in order to resist the impact of stones, hail or vandals by introducing controlled flaws, equivalent to the claimed cracks, to the outer surface of the inner glass layer by means of abrasion.
It further would have been obvious to form the flaws via abrasion such that they are subjected to a chemical mechanical polishing process, which is utilized on automobiles, in order to provide a planarized surface as taught by Li and wherein that polishing is performed with an abrading pad having abrasive grains of silicon carbide in order to provide a more uniform surface as taught by Sjoberg.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the abrasion method for improving impact resistance taught by Cleary and Sjoberg is identical to the strength levelling process described in applicant’s specification and is utilized for the same purpose, being providing a more uniform surface when fine cracks are present in the laminated glasses (Instant Specification, PGPUB, Paragraph [0047]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the methods and materials of the laminated glasses taught by the combination of Saint-Gobain, Cleary, Li and Sjoberg are identical and would result in having identical properties as well, including, but not limited to having a breaking stress measured by ISO 1288-5 (2016) of 100 to 600 MPa in a region greater than or equal to 90% of a see-through region and a second region with a breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of greater than 600 MPa wherein the second region is a reduced high-stress region such that a percentage of the second region is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.
Regarding claim 18, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the glasses are formed from the same methods and materials as applicant’s inventions resulting in identical properties including, as required by claim 18, “a percentage of a region with the breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of less than 100 MPa is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.”
Regarding claims 19-20, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, laminated glasses are taught to have identical properties to that of applicant’s invention.
The limitations regarding the breaking stress being measured by applying a load from the interior (claim 19) or the exterior (claim 20) are product-by-process limitations which do not further limit the products of claim 1. MPEP 2113: It has been held that “[e]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, Saint-Gobain teaches the final products of claims 19 and 20.
Regarding claim 21, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, laminated glasses are taught to have identical properties to that of applicant’s invention.
Furthermore, the limitation of the breaking stress being measured in a state before mounting the laminated glass to a vehicle is a product-by-process limitations which does not further limit the products of claim 1. MPEP 2113: It has been held that “[e]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, Saint-Gobain teaches the final product of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Saint-Gobain further teaches the glasses being used as windshields (Paragraph [0050]).
Regarding claim 23, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the glasses are formed from the same methods and materials as applicant’s inventions resulting in identical properties including, as required by claim 23, “a third region with a breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of less than 100 MPa, wherein the percentage of the second region is less than or equal to 3% of the see-through region, and a percentage of the third region is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.”
Regarding claim 24, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the glasses are formed from the same methods and materials as applicant’s inventions resulting in identical properties including, as required by claim 24, “a third region with a breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of less than 100 MPa, wherein the percentage of the second region is less than or equal to 1% of the see-through region, and a percentage of the third region is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.”
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saint-Gobain (DE 20-2016-008-420) in view of Cleary et al. (US 2015/0132538), Li et al. (US 2003/0077995), and Sjoberg et al. (WO 2019/239013) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Oh et al. (US 2019/0134953).
Regarding claim 17, Saint-Gobain teaches the laminated glasses as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the glasses are formed from the same methods and materials as applicant’s inventions resulting in identical properties including, as required by claim 17, “a percentage of a region with the breaking stress measured by the method described in ISO 1288-5 (2016) of greater than 600 MPa is less than or equal to 5% of the see-through region.”
Saint-Gobain further teaches the glasses being slightly or strongly curved (Paragraph [0029]).
Saint-Gobain is silent with respect to the laminated glasses having a radius of curvature from 1,000 to 100,000 mm.
Oh teaches a curved laminated glass for a vehicle (Paragraph [0063]). The glasses may be curved to have a radius of 3,000 to 10,000 mm (Paragraph [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the glasses of Saint-Gobain to have a radius of curvature of 3,000 to 10,000 mm as taught by Oh wherein both references teach curved glasses for vehicles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 12/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
On pages 6-8, applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 requiring at least one of the first, second, third, or fourth surfaces has cracks overcomes the prior art references of Li and Sjoberg such that both references teach polishing for the removal of cracks rather than creating them. This is contrary to applicant’s invention which intentionally introduces cracks which remain on the surface of the glass.
The examiner recognizes that the aim of the references of Li and Sjoberg aim to provide planar surfaces through abrasion methods as discussed in the rejection dated 08/26/2025. The examiner concedes in that both of the references fail to teach the abrasion methods having cracks/scratches being maintained in the final product. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made further in view of the teachings of Cleary which teaches providing flaws to a surface of laminated glasses in order to provide improved impact resistance and the flaws may be formed in the process of mechanical means such as abrasion (See rejection above). These methods of abrasion may be any necessary method such as the methods and materials taught by Li and Sjoberg. As such, the examiner contends that the combination of Cleary, Li and Sjoberg teaches the strength levelling process taught in the instant specification.
Regarding newly presented claim 16, it is further noted the methods and materials taught by Saint-Gobain, Cleary, Li and Sjoberg are still identical and teach substantially identical properties. Even further, Cleary specifically teaches the impact resistance is improved through the introduction of flaws introduced in the outer surface of the inner sheet wherein the flaws are provided in substantially the entire area of the surface or in an entire area of the surface except for a peripheral portion of the surface (Paragraph [0010]). As such, the teachings of Saint-Gobain in view of Cleary would result in the periphery regions having the claimed second region properties.
The current rejection is made Final in view of the amendments to the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783