RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The objections to the drawings made of record in the office action mailed on 05/22/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s substitute drawings submitted in the response filed 11/21/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 05/22/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s substitute drawings submitted in the response filed 11/21/2025.
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 05/22/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s substitute drawings submitted in the response filed 11/21/2025.
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 § 112
Claims 1-2 and 4-16 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 1 recites the limitation "the automotive rear window glazing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the preamble refers to simply “an automotive glazing”. It is not clear therefore if the “the automotive rear window glazing" refers to a structure separate from the automotive glazing"
Claims 2 and 4-16 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, 4-10 and 12-16 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 Kagaya et al. (KR 20120034722).
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. 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]).
With respect to the limitation “configured for installation as a rear window”, this limitation does not impart any additional structural features to the claim and is therefore being interpreted as a statement of intended use. Applicant’s attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Given that the composite pane disclosed in Schall et al. includes the two glass panes and the thermoplastic layer laminated together, it would be capable of performing the intended function of being installed in a car as a rear window glazing.
Schall et al. does not disclose an installation angle of the glass laminate as presently claimed.
Kagaya et al. teaches a window pane for a vehicle including two glass plates that are bonded together with an intermediate thermoplastic layer. (Abstract and page 2, last paragraph). Kagaya et al. that the window pane may have an installation angle of 15-90o, preferably 30-90o with respect to the horizontal plane. (page 6, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to install the glass composite pane disclosed in Schall et al. at an angle of 30-90o as disclosed in Kagaya et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to install the glass composite pane at the angle taught in Kagaya et al. since the secondary reference teaches a suitable range for such glass pane composites within a vehicle. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have a reasonable expectation of success that within the disclosed angle range of Kagaya et al., the glass pane would be capable of performing adequately in a vehicle as a window. Applying a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143.
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 8-10, 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 Kagaya et al. (KR 20120034722), further in view of Cleary et al. (WO2019/245819).
Schall in view of Kagaya 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 11/21/2025 regarding the prior art rejections made of record in the previous office action have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that installation angle as presently claimed is not obvious over the teachings of Schall in view of Kagaya et al. as set forth in the claim rejections above. In particular, Applicant alleges that Schall et al. does not disclose a rear window and therefore would not be combined with the teachings of the secondary reference.
These arguments are not found persuasive because the present claims merely require an automotive glazing that is configured for installation as a rear window. (Emphasis added). This limitation is interpreted as intended use/functional limitation which does impart clear structural features to the automotive glazing. Given that the glazing structure disclosed in Schall et al. meets all the structural features presently claimed, it would be configured for “installation as a rear window”. In effect, Applicant’s arguments that Schall et al. does not disclose a “rear window” are not commensurate in scope with the claim limitations which require simply that the automotive glazing be configured for use as a rear window, which the glazing of Schall et al. clearly is.
Kagaya et al. relates merely to known installation angles of window panes for use in automotive applications and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings with Schall et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success that installation of the glazing structure disclosed in the primary reference at an angle as disclosed in the range taught Kagaya et al. would result in a glazing structure which would be suitable for use in an automobile. Applying a known technique to a known device for improvement to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2143.
Applicant further argues that Kagaya et al. does not render obvious the claimed range of 65o or greater since the reference discloses a preferred angle of up to 60o.
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure of nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123. Since Kagaya et al. teaches an angle range from 30 to 90o, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to selected any of the values in the range to achieve the appropriate installation configuration in the automotive. The mere disclosure of a preferred value does not teach away from values of 65o or more as claimed, which lie within the presently claimed range. 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).
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 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 12/09/2025