RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2,4-7 and 9-17 are pending in the application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §112 and §103 rejections of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 12/11/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 04/13/2026.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schall et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0156352) in view of Yano et al. (EP 3395778) (cited in the IDS filed on 04/13/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Schall et al. discloses a composite pane including a first and second pane with a thermoplastic film arranged between the two panes. (Abstract). The panes are made of glass and the interlayer is substantially co-extensive with the two glass panes. (Fig. 1, 3 and 6 and par. [0023]-[0026]). Schall et al. therefore discloses two plies of a glazing material with a plastics interlayer as presently claimed. Schall et al. discloses that the thickness of the first and second panes lies in the range of 0.5 to 1.1 mm (par. [0016]) which overlaps with the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Schall et al. further discloses that the interlayer material includes elongated elevations and depressions (i.e. draw lines) (par. [0012]) which run in the vertical direction of the panes/interlayer which are the result of the extrusion/drawing process (i.e. from the top and bottom edges). (par. [0008], [0011]-[0012]). Schall et al. teaches the laminate is assembled such that the draw lines are arranged substantially parallel to those of the glass panes. (par. [0022] and [0026]).
Schall et al. does not disclose that the composite pane is an automotive rear window glazing installation.
Yano et al. teaches a laminated glass material containing two glass plates with a resin interlayer placed in between, similar to the structure described in Schall et al. (Abstract, Fig. 5, par. [0049] and [0061]). Yano et al. teaches that the laminated glass structure may suitably be used as a windshield, rear window or roof for an automobile. (par. [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the composite pane structure disclosed in Schall et al. in an automotive rear window installation in view of the teachings of Yano et al. suggesting that such laminated glass structures are known to be used in rear windows of automobiles.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the composite pane of Schall et al. in a rear window installation of an automobile in view of the reasonable expectation of success that the structure would be suitable for use as a rear window based on the teachings of Yano et al. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Schall et al. does not disclose an installation angle of the glass laminate as presently claimed.
Yano et al. teaches that these types of glass panes further generally include a blocking layer on one surface of the glass pane near the edges thereof and that optical distortion can occur when looking through the glass pane due to the formation of convex/concave sections being present which impairs visibility. (par. [0004]-[0012]). Yano et al. teaches that a solution to this optical distortion is adjusting the installation angle of glass panes in automobiles directly affects the amount distortion and that the installation angle should be 30 degrees or less from the horizontal (which would be equivalent to 90-30 = 60 degrees or more from the vertical, overlapping with the claimed range of 65 degrees or more to the vertical) (par. [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the composite pane material of Schall et al. at an installation angle of 60 degrees or more to the vertical in view of the teachings of Yano et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to place the composite pane at an installation angle of 60 degrees or more in view of the reduced distortion produced at such angles, improving the visibility through the layers. It is noted that Yano et al. suggests solving a problem regarding the layers of the glass pane not being substantially parallel to one another as a result of the fabrication process which as an issue which Schall et al. recognizes during the formation of the interlayer due to the draw lines. Alternatively, the addition of a blocking layer onto the pane structure of Schall et al., which advantageously provides a structure of preventing visibility of stereos cameras or other structures from the outside of the vehicle, would result in the distortions and would therefor require the installation angles as taught by Yano et al.
Regarding claim 2, Schall et al. teaches the laminate is assembled such that the draw lines are arranged substantially parallel to those of the glass panes. (par. [0022] and [0026]).
Regarding claims 9-10, Schall et al. discloses that the thickness of the first and second panes lies in the range of 0.5 to 1.1 mm (par. [0016]) which overlaps with the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claims 12-14, Schall et al. discloses that the distances between the depressions (i.e. wavelength) in the interlayer is greater or equal to 50 mm. (par. [0013]) which encompasses the presently claimed ranges, rendering them obvious over the prior art. (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 15-16, Schall et al. does not disclose a car wherein the glass pane is used as a rear window. However, Schall et al. explicitly teaches using the pane laminate in a motor vehicle. (par. [0002]).
Kagaya et al. teaches that the pane structure of his invention may be used in front, side or rear windows. (page 2, “Embodiment of the Invention”).
Given that both Schall and Kagaya et al. disclose glass pane laminates with a thermoplastic interlayer, it would have been obvious to use the laminate in Schall et al. in substantially the same applications as Kagaya et al. including as a rear window in a vehicle. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schall et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2020/0156352) in view of Yano et al. (EP 3395778) (cited in the IDS filed on 04/13/2026), further in view of Cleary et al. (WO2019/245819).
Schall in view of Yano et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Schall et al. does not disclose that the glass is chemically strengthened.
Cleary et al. discloses a glass laminate including two outer glass sheets with a polymer interlayer therebetween. (Abstract). Cleary et al. teaches chemically strengthening the outer glass layers by ion exchange which significantly improves the durability, sound-damping and breakage performance of the glass panes relative to their thickness. (par. [0005] and [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to chemically strengthen the glass panes in Schall et al. as disclosed in Cleary et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to chemically strengthen the glass panes in order to improve their durability, sound-damping and breakage performance of the glass panes relative to their thickness for yielding an overall improved glass laminate material.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 04/13/2026 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 12/11/2025 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
Newly cited reference Yano et al. teaches the installation angle affecting the distortion of the glass composite structure and using installation angles which overlap with the presently claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 05/29/2026
Prosecution Insights