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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2012/0094084 Fisher et al.
Regarding claim 1, Fisher teaches a windshield (paragraph 0003) comprising:
an outer glass plate;
an inner glass plate that faces the outer glass plate; and
an intermediate film disposed between the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate (paragraph 0005, optionally including a second glass sheet),
wherein, in at least a partial region of the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate, compressive principal stress on a surface on a vehicle exterior side of the outer glass plate is higher than compressive principal stress on a surface on a vehicle interior side of the inner glass plate (paragraph 0062).
Fisher teaches breakage of the glass plates (paragraph 0063), but does not explicitly teach the inner plate breaking before the outer plate. However, Fisher’s materials and structure are indistinguishable from the claimed materials and structure. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that Fisher’s inner glass plate would also break before the outer glass plate, alleviating an impact on a person who collides with the windshield from the outside of the vehicle. “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” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Regarding claim 2, Fisher teaches that the at least partial region is a region below a center in the vertical direction when the windshield is mounted on a vehicle in an up-down direction of the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate (paragraph 0062, where the entire sheet exhibits uniform stress).
Regarding claim 7, Fisher teaches that the thickness of the outer glass plate is 0.5 to 2 mm, and the thickness of the inner glass plate is 0.5 to 2 mm (paragraph 0058).
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.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0094084 Fisher et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0207290 Cleary et al.
Regarding claim 3, Fisher teaches the windshield but does not teach that the stress on the surface on the vehicle exterior side of the outer glass plate is higher than the stress on a surface on a vehicle interior side of the outer glass plate. Cleary teaches a thin glass laminate for use in automotive glazings (paragraph 0002), where the compressive principal stress on the surface 13 on the vehicle exterior side of the outer glass plate is higher than compressive principal stress on a surface 15 on a vehicle interior side of the outer glass plate (paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stresses of Cleary in the product of Fisher because these stresses make the surface more resistant to fracture (paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 4, Fisher teaches the windshield but does not teach that the stress on the surface on the vehicle exterior side of the inner glass plate is lower than the stress on a surface on a vehicle interior side of the inner glass plate. Cleary teaches a thin glass laminate for use in automotive glazings (paragraph 0002), where the compressive principal stress on the surface 17 on the vehicle exterior side of the inner glass plate is lower than compressive principal stress on a surface 19 on a vehicle interior side of the inner glass plate (paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stresses of Cleary in the product of Fisher because these stresses make the surface more resistant to fracture (paragraph 0067).
Regarding claim 5, Fisher teaches the windshield but does not teach that the stress on the surface on the vehicle exterior side of the inner glass plate is higher than the stress on a surface on a vehicle interior side of the inner glass plate. Cleary teaches a thin glass laminate for use in automotive glazings (paragraph 0002), but does not explicitly teach this stress embodiment. However, Cleary does teach that that the compressive stress is based on the ion exchange and annealing steps and therefore can be altered to achieve the desired stress (paragraph 0040).
Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific stress relationship between the interior and exterior sides of the inner glass plate is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method (paragraph 0040), the precise stress relationship would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed stress relationship cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the stress relationship between the interior and exterior surfaces in the inner glass pate to obtain the desired physical characteristic (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). See MPEP 2144.05 Section II.
Regarding claim 6, Fisher teaches the windshield but does not teach that the thickness of the outer glass plate is larger than that of the inner glass plate. Cleary teaches a thin glass laminate for use in automotive glazings (paragraph 0002), where the thickness of the outer glass plate is larger than the thickness of the inner glass plate (paragraph 0067). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the thicknesses of Cleary in the product of Fisher because this allows for the bending that imparts desired stresses (paragraph 0067).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0094084 Fisher et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 4,075,381 Furukawa et al.
Regarding claim 8, Fisher teaches the windshield but does not teach that the stress is between 5 and 50 MPa. Furukawa teaches a laminated glass windshield where the compressive principal stress on the surface on the vehicle exterior side (at the periphery) of the outer glass plate is 20 to 34 MPa (200-500 kg/cm2, column 3, lines 44-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the stresses of Furukawa in the product of Fisher because this aids handling and reduces damage to the glass plates (column 1, lines 63-68).
Regarding claim 9, Fisher teaches that the thicknesses of the glass plates are 0.5 to 2 mm (paragraph 0058). Furukawa teaches that the compressive stresses are 20 to 34 MPa (200-500 kg/cm2, column 3, lines 44-47). Therefore, the claimed S2*S4*(t12+t1*t2)2 = 1.5625 (when stresses and thickness are at a minimum) to 78,608 (when stresses and thicknesses are at a maximum).
“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 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 1.5625 to 78,608 reads on the claimed range of less than 1600.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 25, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fisher does not teach the newly added subject matter. However, as discussed above, this feature results from the structure and processing of the glass plates. Fisher meets all of the claimed structure and therefore would also exhibit the same breakage pattern as that of the instant invention. If Applicant believes this is in error, Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the claim.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to modify Fisher with Cleary. However, Cleary teaches that the treatments creates a product that is more resistant to fracture. This further strengthens the glass, a feature desirable in Fisher.
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 Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 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, 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781