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 § 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 1, 2, 5-13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0064516 Wagner et al in view of WO 2020/040115 Nakayama et al (cited by US 2021/0323276).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner teaches a laminated glazing 12 (paragraph 0008) with light transmission LT in the visible spectrum of at least 70% (paragraph 0008), consisting of:
two clear glass (paragraph 0048) sheets 22,28 bonded to one another by an adhesive interlayer 34 to form a laminated structure (paragraph 0046),
wherein one of two faces of the two clear glass sheets on an inside of the laminated structure (figure 1) is coated (paragraph 0052) with a stack of thin layers 36 (paragraph 0053) adapted to reflect at least 10% of p-polarized light (paragraph 0019) projected under an incident angle of 60° (paragraph 0019), and
wherein the stack of thin layers comprises only one single layer of silver (paragraph 0074, where only one of the layers is silver).
Wagner does not explicitly teach a reflectance of at least 17% at a 65° angle, but does teach a reflectance of at least 10%, which overlaps with the claimed range, at a 60° angle. While 60° and 65° are not the same, they are close enough such that it would be reasonable to expect the reflectance of p-polarized light to also be similar. And because the claimed range is 17-100% and the taught range is 10-100%, it is reasonable to expect the taught product to behave in the same or similar way to that of the claimed product. Therefore, the examiner is taking the position that the product of Wagner reads on the product of the claim with respect to the angle and reflectance of p-polarized light.
wherein the adhesive interlayer is tinted so as to absorb 30% or less of visible light (paragraph 0086).
“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 at least 10% p-polarized light reads on the claimed range of at least 17%.
Wagner does not explicitly teach that the interlayer is tinted. Nakayama teaches an interlayer for use in laminated glazings where the adhesive interlayer is tinted to absorb 100% (visible light transmittance of less than 1%, paragraph 0128) to less than 30% (visible light transmittance of 70% or more). “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 100% to 30% or less reads on the claimed range of 5-25%.
The only difference between the claim and the prior art is the combination of the elements in a single reference. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the interlayer with tinting of the claim performs differently when combined with the other elements than it does separably nor is there any evidence that the combination would produce any unexpected results. (MPEP 2141, Part III KSR A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results).
Regarding claim 2, Wagner teaches that the stack of thin layers is adapted to reflect 10% or more of p-polarized light (paragraph 0019).
“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 at least 10% p-polarized light reads on the claimed range of at least 19%.
Regarding claim 5, Wagner teaches that the layer of silver is inserted between alternations of layers with high and low refractive index (paragraph 0115 and figure 4B).
Regarding claim 6, Wagner teaches that the stack of thin layers contains, in addition to the layer of silver, layers with high refractive index (paragraph 0115).
Regarding claim 7, Wagner teaches that a thickness of each of the two glass sheets is 2 mm (paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 8, Wagner in view of Nakayama teaches that the tinted adhesive interlayer consists of polyvinyl butyral (PVB, paragraph 0127) and has a thickness of 0.76 mm (paragraph 0127).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayama further teaches a laminated glazing with two sheets of glass bonded together by an interlayer where the adhesive interlayer comprises an upper strip 16 tinted to a greater degree, so as to absorb 99% of visible light (Table 3, Example 1, where 1% of light is transmitted such that 99% is absorbed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the shade band of Nakayama in the product of Wagner because this provides an anti-glare property to the laminated glazing (paragraph 0014).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama teaches that dyes of the tinted adhesive interlayer absorb visible and near-infrared light (paragraph 0313 teaching light shielding, and paragraph 0314 teaching heat shielding particles).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the light- and heat-absorbing particles of Nakayama in the product of Wagner because this reduces the amount of heat transmitted into the vehicle (paragraph 0314).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama further teaches that the adhesive interlayer contains nanoparticles of cesium-doped tungsten oxide (paragraph 0315) so as to absorb infrared light (paragraph 0314, where Nakayama does not disclose the specific wavelengths, but 750-1200 nm light is infrared light and therefore would be absorbed by Nakayama’s heat-shielding particles).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Wagner teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach acoustic damping. Nakayama teaches a laminated glazing with two sheets of glass bonded together by an interlayer where the adhesive interlayer has a three-layer structure (figure 17) that grants it an acoustic damping property (paragraph 0235).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the acoustic damping layer of Nakayama in the product of Wagner because this improves the sound insulation of the glazing (paragraph 0094).
Regarding claim 13, Wagner teaches that a free face of the glass sheet coated with the stack of thin layers comprises an anti-reflective coating (paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 18, Wagner does not explicitly teach the outside light reflection value. Wagner does, however, teach that the anti-reflective coating affects the visible light reflectance (paragraph 0116). Since the instant specification is silent to unexpected results, the specific light reflection is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the physical and optical characteristics are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the parameters of the method (and the anti-reflective coating), the precise reflection would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed outside light reflection cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the outside light reflection to obtain the desired optical 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 19, Nakayama teaches an interlayer for use in laminated glazings where the adhesive interlayer is tinted to absorb 100% (visible light transmittance of less than 1%, paragraph 0128) to less than 30% (visible light transmittance of 70% or more). “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 100% to 30% or less reads on the claimed range of 15-25%.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0064516 Wagner et al in view of WO 2020/040115 Nakayama et al (cited by US 2021/0323276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/094423 Fischer et al (cited by US 2021/0316533).
Regarding claim 14, Wagner teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach the use of electrodes. Fischer teaches a laminated glazing including two opposing edges of a surface of the stack of thin layers connected to electrodes connected to an electric power supply, so as to make the stack of thin layers heatable (paragraph 0084, where voltage and current require electrodes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the electrodes of Fischer in the product of Wagner because this frees the glass of condensed moisture or icing (paragraph 0084).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Fischer have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection over Wagner in view of Nakayama does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781