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 .
Examiner Nots
Claims 1-20 are currently pending of which claims 1-9 and 15-20 are withdrawn. Claims 10 and 12-13 are currently amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites that the polycarbonate layer positioned behind the plurality of second comprises a coating of a film having a differing coefficient of thermal expansion from the polycarbonate. After reviewing the specification support for this limitation was not found. The specification appears to teach soft layers positioned between hard layer within different sections and having a different coefficient of thermal expansion (e.g., specification 0055-0057). There does not appear to be support for a coating on the polycarbonate surface having a differing coefficient of thermal expansion as claimed.
Claims 11-14 are rejected as being dependent upon unsupported claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites “a rearmost hard layer” and “a foremost hard layer,” it is unclear if the rearmost and foremost hard layers are referring to the rearmost and foremost hard layers of each of the plurality of sections or if the rearmost and foremost hard layers are referring to the first and last layers within the composite glass as a whole.
For sake of further examination, “rearmost hard layer” and “foremost hard layer” will be examined as referring to the first hard layer and last hard layer in the composite as a whole. It is suggested to recite e.g., a rearmost hard layer of the multilayered composite ballistic glass comprises polycarbonate or a foremost hard layer of the multilayered composite ballistic glass comprises one of acrylic and a silica-based glass .
Claim 10 further recites flexible film(s) bonded to “an outer surface of a hard layer” it is unclear if each of the plurality of convex hard layers comprises a flexible film bonded to an outer surface or if only one (and thus which one of the plurality) comprise the flexible film bonded to the outer surface.
For sake of further examination, any hard layer comprising a flexible film bonded to a surface will be viewed as meeting the claimed limitations.
Claim 10 recites “each flexible film” however the claims also recites that there may be a single flexible film (one or more), it is unclear if the claims is further defining at least two flexible films be present.
For sake of further examination “each flexible film” will be viewed as “the one or more flexible films” thus not requiring two films.
Lastly, claim 10 further recites “soft layers.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear what is considered the scope of a “soft layer”.
For sake of further examination, any layer which is not a hard layer will be viewed as a soft layer.
Claims 11-14 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 10.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennison et al. (US 2009/0324935) in view of Mannheim Astete et al. (US 2013/0302581), Shorr et al. (US 3,864,204), and Zucker et al. (US 2022/0010609).
Regarding claim 10, Bennison teaches a transparent and light-weight ballistic resistant safety glazing comprising a plurality of sections e.g., 30/40, 32/42 (Fig. 1). The impact zone (10) comprising hard layers 30, 32, and 34 and made of e.g., silica-based tempered glass, acrylics, or polycarbonate (0040); the anti-spall zone (20) comprising a layer of abrasion-resistant polycarbonate (60) (0041). Thus, the rearmost hard layer (34) of the glazing comprises polycarbonate and the foremost hard layer of the glazing comprises one of acrylic and a silica-based glass (30) and a polycarbonate layer (60) is positioned behind the plurality of sections (Fig. 1, 0040-0041). An adhesive layer (50) coating the polycarbonate layer (0041, 0070, Fig. 1) and necessarily having a differing coefficient of thermal expansion from the polycarbonate and would be operable to allow the polycarbonate layer to expand to a greater degree.
Interleaved between the hard layers are polymeric interlayers (40 and 42) of a polyvinyl polymer (0039). As the interlayer are in the impact zone and comprise the same material (vinyl polymer) the interlayers of Bennison would be expected to dampen vibration of a bullet impacting the ballistic glass.
Bennison further teaches that the glass may be coated with sputtered coatings thus teaching the recto surface having a flexible film (0040), and that adjacent hard layers not be bonded to one another as either an interlayer and/or adhesive is interleaved between adjacent hard layers (Fig. 1). Given the composite may include both the interlayer and adhesives/primers (0039), more soft layers will be positioned toward the recto surface than toward the verso surface.
Bennison does not teach the hard layers being convex, and thus each hard layer comprising a rearward surface defining an arc, wherein the arc defined by the rearmost hard layer is nonequivalent to the arc defined by the foremost hard layer, and does not provide a suitable thickness for the interlayers.
Regarding the convex curvature, Mannheim Astete, in the analogous field of ballistic glass (0001), teaches a curved bullet-proof composite, wherein the layers are curved in a convex curve (Fig. 4).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to have formed the laminate of Bennison in a convex curve (such that the hard layers would necessarily have a convex curve and thus comprise a rearward surface defining an arc) as taught by Mannheim Astete, curved bullet-proof glass is known in the field having a curved laminate avoids generating spacing compared to entirely parallel layers (0022).
As Bennison in view of Mannheim Astete teaches convex curvature of the hard layers, the arc defined by the rearmost hard layer is nonequivalent to the arc defined by the foremost had layer as claimed because the location of each hard layer is different and thus nonequivalent.
Regarding the interlayer thickness, Shorr, in the analogous field ballistic glass (column 1, lines 10-15), discloses a plurality of glass layers alternating with an interlayer of polyvinyl polymer (column 2, lines 25-30). Shorr teaches the interlayer having a thickness that is preferably 20 to 60% of the thickness of the glass sheet (column 4, lines 40-45) and expressly teaches and interlayer having a thickness of 0.020 inch (column 4, lines 50-55), overlapping the claimed thickness of between 0.004 and 0.048.
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the interlayers of Bennison to have a thickness as taught in Shorr, to reduce frequency of glass spalling resulting from in sufficient counter force and provide a device whereby if spall is created it does not cause injury (column 3, lines 50-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Lastly, Bennison does not expressly teach each section is separately baked and spaced away from other sections with double-sided tape adhered to a perimeter.
Regarding the double-sided tape, Zucker, in the analogous field of ballistic panels (0010), teaches a spacer between first and second glass panels using a doubled-sided adhesive tape adhered to a perimeter of the panel (0097, Fig. 1).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the hard layers of Bennison to include a spacer and doubled-sided adhesive tape therebetween, to prevent the glazing unit being reduced when under compressive loading (0015).
Modified Bennison does not teach separately baking each section however, this recitation includes product by process language. The above arguments establish a rationale tending to show the claimed product is the same as what is taught by the prior art. “[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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 11, Bennison teaches the rigid sheets comprising silica-based glass (0040).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennison in view of Mannheim Astete, Shorr, and Zucker as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Gu (US 2009/0136702).
Regarding claim 12, modified Bennison discloses the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Bennison does not teach wherein each section is convex and arched to differing angles.
Gu, in the analogous field of armor laminates (0002), teaches an armor system comprising a plurality of layers having a non-planar interface formed between at least two adjacent layers of the laminate (0015). Gu teaches that the non-planar interface designs modify the shock wave profile, mitigate stress distribution and energy dissipation pattern, enhance penetration resistance and shock resistance and can lower weight by requiring less layers (0033-0039). Gu further teaches that the interfacial design can be optimized to achieve the best performance, including the interfaces having different non-planar designs (0048-0049).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the convex sections of modified Bennison to be arched to different angles based upon the teachings of Gu, to further enhance the ballistic efficiency (0033-0039).
Given Bennison teaches that an adhesive may be present to adhere the layers to each other (0038) the recesses would be backfilled with a liquid laminate as claimed.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennison in view of Mannheim Astete, Shorr, and Zucker as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Knuth et al. (US 2020/0331237).
Regarding claim 13, modified Bennison discloses the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Bennison does not teach wherein two or more hard layers are adapted to form a recess into which is injected one of a liquid laminate, a silicone sealant and a clear butyl.
Knuth, in the analogous field of bullet resistant glass laminates (0002), discloses a glazing unit comprising a first and second laminate panel (16 and 18, respectively). Where, between the panes is a recess (22) filled with an insulative gas such as argon (0047).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the intermediate rigid layers of Bennison to be separated to form a recess into which argon gas is filled, to minimize thermal exchange across the glazing unit (0047).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennison in view of Mannheim Astete, Shorr, and Zucker as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Molari, Jr. (US 4,322,476), Hartley (US 2011/0308381) and Sobon et al. (WO0027941).
Regarding claim 14, modified Bennison discloses the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above. Modified Bennison does not teach the polycarbonate layer being coated on one face with an acrylic coating, or wherein each section comprises gridlines operable to function as heating elements the gridlines formed from one of graphene and latticed steel.
Regarding the acrylic coating, Molari, Jr, in the analogous field of impact resistant laminates (column 1, lines 5-10), teaches a window glazing comprising a back polycarbonate layer (column 2, lines 15-20) comprising an acrylic polymer primer coating (column 2, lines 55-65).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the polycarbonate layer of Bennison to include an acrylic coating as taught by Molari, to reduce spalling of the underlying polycarbonate layer (column 2, lines 60-62).
Regarding the heating elements, Hartley, in the analogous field of ballistic glass (0003), discloses a heating element provided in any interlayer of a multilayered laminate (0035).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for each section of Bennison to include a heating element as taught by Hartley, to provide anti-fogging/anti-fouling characteristics to the sections (0042).
Hartley does not teach that the heating element comprises gridlines formed from one of graphene and latticed steel.
Sobon, laminated glass assemblies (page 2), discloses a mesh heating element (page 3), exemplary meshes including woven meshes including on a bias (i.e., latticed) of carbon or steel (page 12).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the heating element of modified Bennison to include latticed steel as taught by Sobon, as these structures have multiple continuous electrically conductive paths and high amount of stretch when bent into coplanar arcs (page 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 10 overcome the antecedent issues.
The examiner disagrees and maintains the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Additionally, due to the amendments new 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been made.
Applicant argues that the amendments distinguish over the cited prior art.
For the reasons discussed in the rejections above the claims are unpatentable over the applied prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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 at 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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781