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 .
Response to Amendment
The following office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed on April 12, 2026. Claims 1 and 4-20 are pending. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled, claim 4 is objected to, and claims 1 and 5-20 stand rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. 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.
4. Claim(s) 1, 5-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher (US 2016/0082705) in view of Akiyama (US 11,472,161) and further in view of Abell (US 4,133,367).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses an apparatus, comprising: at least one glass pane 10 comprising a laminate, (Fig 1), wherein the laminate has a thickness of not greater than 3 mm, wherein the laminate comprises a first glass layer 12 a second glass layer 14, and an interlayer 16 configured between the first glass layer and the second glass layer to attach the first glass layer to the second glass layer, wherein one or more of the first glass layer and the second glass layer has a thickness of less than 1 mm (Fig 1), (Par 0011). Examiner wants to note that Fisher discloses “at least one of the two glass sheets may have a thickness not exceeding 1 mm” and “the thickness of the interlayer may have a thickness in a range from about 0.38 mm to about 2 mm, or from about 0.76 mm to about 0.81 mm” thus the laminate can have a thickness of not greater than 3 mm.
Fisher discloses the apparatus but does not disclose a frame, configured perimetrically around a corresponding perimetrical edge of the at least one glass pane; a seal, configured between the frame and the at least one glass pane. However, Akiyama discloses a fenestration apparatus comprising at least one glass pane 10, a frame 30, configured perimetrically around a corresponding perimetrical edge of the at least one glass pane; a seal 31, configured between the frame and the at least one glass pane (Fig 4, 5a, 5b). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Fisher to include a frame and a seal as taught by Akiyama in order to provide a fenestration apparatus that can be installed in a building. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Fisher modified by Akiyama does not disclose an attachment member on the frame, wherein the attachment member is configured to be removably fixable to an existing window, wherein the attachment member is configured to define a gap between the frame, the at least one glass pane, and the existing window, and wherein the attachment member comprises a compression member that is removably attached via a compression fit and configured to retain the fenestration apparatus on the existing window. However, Abell discloses a fenestration apparatus having at least one glass pane130 and a frame 136, (Fig 1, 6) and an attachment member 164, 165 on the frame (Fig 6), wherein the attachment member is configured to be removably fixable to an existing window, wherein the attachment member is configured to define a gap between the frame, the at least one glass pane, and the existing window, (Fig 1) and wherein the attachment member comprises a compression member 164 that is removably attached via a compression fit and configured to retain the fenestration apparatus on the existing window (Fig 1, 6). Examiner wants to note that the attachment member of Abell is an adhesive strip that would be compressed under the weight of the at least one glass and the frame thus is considered a compression member that is removably attached via a compression fit. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fenestration apparatus of Fisher and Akiyama to include an attachment member as taught by Abell in order to be able to secure the fenestration apparatus into an existing frame when is desired to provide an insulation layer with outstanding post-breakage glass retention properties. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Akijama further discloses the frame 30 is configured with a base, capable of being configured to retain on an existing window frame and/or alongside an existing window frame assembly (Fig 4, 5a, 5b).
Regarding claim 6, Akijama further discloses the frame 30 is configured with at least two upward extensions along the perimetrical edge of the glass laminate, the at least two upward extensions comprising a first extension configured alongside the first glass layer 11 and a second extension configured alongside the second glass layer 12 (Figure 5b).
Regarding claim 7, Abell further discloses the existing window 10 comprises an adjacent perimetrical ledge/extension (Fig 1).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Fisher discloses the first glass layer 12 and the second glass layer is less than 1 mm thick (Par 0011), but does not disclose is less than 0.9 mm thick. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the first and second glass layer to have the thickness as claimed, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the thickness of the first and second glass layers according to the desired structural capabilities of the fenestration apparatus. A change in thickness is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, Fisher discloses the interlayer 16 comprises a thickness of not greater than 2.5 mm (Par 0011).
Regarding claim 11, Fisher discloses the interlayer 16 comprises a polymer (Par 0011).
Regarding claim 12, Fisher discloses the interlayer 16 comprises an ionomer (Par 0011).
Regarding claim 13, Fisher discloses the interlayer 16 comprises a polyvinyl butyral (PVB), (Par 0011).
Regarding claim 14, Fisher discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the laminate comprises a coating on at least one of: a. a first major surface of the first glass layer, b. a second major surface of the second glass layer, and c. both the first major surface of the first glass layer and the second major surface of the second glass layer. However, Akijama discloses the laminate comprises a coating 21 on at least one of: a. a first major surface of the first glass layer, b. a second major surface of the second glass layer, and c. both the first major surface of the first glass layer and the second major surface of the second glass layer (Fig 3), (Col 9, Lines 63-66). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminate of Fisher to include a coating as taught by Akiyama, in order to provide scratch protection. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Fisher discloses the interlayer is an acoustic dampening polymer configured for noise reduction (Par 0070).
Regarding claim 16, Fisher modified by Akijama and Abell discloses the modified fenestration apparatus is a removable secondary glazing assembly.
Regarding claim 17, Fisher discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose the interlayer is a tinted polymer. However, Akijama discloses the interlayer 16 is a tinted polymer (Col 9, Lines 24-25). Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laminate of Fisher to include a tinted polymer as taught by Akiyama, in order to provide a design pattern or privacy. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18, Fisher modified by Akijama and Abell discloses the modified fenestration apparatus would pass a safety test as set out in ANSI Z97.1 or EN 12600 standard, when measured in accordance with the standard. Examiner concludes this because the fenestration apparatus of Fisher modified by Akijama and Abell would have the same structure of Applicant’s claimed invention and it will be able to perform in the same manner.
Regarding claim 19, Fisher discloses at least one of the first glass layer and the second glass layer is a chemically strengthened glass (Par 0010).
Regarding claim 20, Fisher modified by Akijama and Abell discloses as discussed in claim 1, but does not disclose a second glass pane is disposed in spaced relation from the at least one glass pane. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the fenestrations apparatus to include a second glass pane since such a modification would have involved a mere duplication of parts and it would enhance the heat and sound insulation properties of the fenestration apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for the indication of allowable subject matter is the inclusion of the combination of “at least one glass pane, a frame, a seal, an attachment member comprising a compression member that is removably attached via a compression fit and a mechanical attachment member” having the structural limitations as recited in the claims. There would be no reason to modify the prior art without relying in hindsight.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, indicating that “Fischer is silent on the features towards the attachment member, Akiyama fails to disclose the laminate required by claim 1 and Abell is silent on at least the laminate as required by claim 1”. Examiner notes that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case Fischer was used for the teaching of the at least one glass pane comprising a laminate with a thickness as claimed; Akiyama was only used for the teaching of a fenestration apparatus including at least one pane, a frame and a seal; Abell was only used for the teaching of a fenestration apparatus including an attachment member. Examiner contends that it will be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one glass pane of Fischer including a frame and a seal as taught by Akiyama in order to provide a fenestration apparatus that can be installed in a building. Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fenestration apparatus of Fischer modified by Akiyama to include an attachment member as taught by Abell in order to be able to secure the fenestration apparatus into an existing frame when is desired to provide an insulation layer with outstanding post-breakage glass retention properties.
In response to applicant's argument that Akiyama is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the glass pane comprising a laminate of Fischer can be used in a window in architectural applications, and the glass pane with a frame of Akiyama can be used in a window in a building that are considered in the same field of endeavor.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the alleged combination with Abell does not reflect the stated order of references in the rejection. Examiner respectfully disagrees, the rejection clearly states “the fenestration apparatus of Fischer and Akiyama” indicating that the apparatus of Fischer has been modified by Akiyama to provide a fenestration apparatus and the modified fenestration apparatus of Fischer and Akiyama was modified to include the attachment member of Abell.
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 Brian E Glessner whose telephone number is (571)272-6754. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:00 to 4:00.
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, Namrata Boveja can be reached at 571-272-8105. 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.
/BRIAN E GLESSNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3633
Prosecution Insights