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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6, 2026, has been entered.
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, 3, 5-18 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/025360 Li et al in view of US 2010/0189996 Torr et al.
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a laminated glazing 1 (page 3, line 16) comprising
a first sheet 13 of glazing material joined to a second sheet 14 of glazing material by an interlayer structure 20 therebetween (page 3, line 24 – page 4, line 2),
the first and second sheet of glazing material each comprise 0.002-0.06 wt% Fe2O3 (page 9, line 29 – page 10, line 2)
the interlayer structure comprising at least a first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (page 4, line 1, where the interlayer material may be adhesive by functioning as an adhesive even if it is not called an adhesive),
each of the first and second sheets of glazing material having a respective first major surface and second opposing major surface (figure 2);
the laminated glazing being arranged such that the second major surface of the first sheet of glazing material faces the first major surface of the second sheet of glazing (figure 2);
the laminated glazing having a first region 12 for positioning a sensor thereon (page 4, lines 4-5) and a second region 11 being a through-vision region (page 4, lines 6-7),
the first region of the laminated glazing comprising a first portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material and the second region of the laminated glazing comprising a second portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material (figure 1);
the sensor being arranged to transmit a beam of electromagnetic radiation having at least a first wavelength (IR, 750-2500 nm) towards the first portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material for transmission through the laminated glazing and out of the second major surface of the second sheet of glazing material (page 4, lines 4-18);
wherein at normal incidence to the first portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material, the laminated glazing has a first transmittance at the first wavelength and at normal incidence to the second portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material, the laminated glazing has a second transmittance at the first wavelength, the first transmittance of the laminated glazing being higher than the second transmittance of the laminated glazing (page 4, lines 6-10); and
the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material comprises heat absorbing particles (page 15, lines 1-3) having an average particle diameter of 0.2 microns or less (page 18, lines 18-20).
“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 0.2 microns or less reads on the claimed range of 0.01 to 0.1 microns.
Li does not teach the wedge angle. However, Li does disclose that the prior art teaches that the separation of the first major surface of first sheet of glazing material and the second major surface of the second sheet of glazing material in at least the second region of the laminated glazing varies in at least a first direction (page 6, lines 23-25 teaching a wedge angle). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the wedge angle of the prior art in the invention of Li because these are useful for head-up display applications (page 6, lines 23-25).
Li does not explicitly teach the visible light transmittance of the second region. Torr teaches a laminated glazing for use with an optical sensor where the visible light transmittance is 80.9% (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the visible light transmittance of Torr in the product of Li because there are legal requirements for minimum visible light transmission (paragraph 0004).
Torr further teaches that at normal incidence to the second portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material, the second region of the laminated glazing has a total transmitted solar (TTS%) of 58.1% (paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the TE of Torr in the product of Li because this is a currently acceptable amount of transmitted solar heat (paragraph 0003).
Torr does not teach the method of measuring. However, the method of measuring the claimed solar transmittance is not considered to structurally limit the claim. Note that Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed method of measuring solar transmittance results in a structural difference between Applicant’s glazing and the taught glazing; see MPEP 2113. As such, Li in view of Torr is considered to render obvious the claimed solar transmittance regardless of the measuring technique.
Li does not teach one of the claimed heat-absorbing particles. Torr further teaches use of lanthanum hexaboride particles (paragraph 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the LaB6 of Torr in the product of Li because this is one of many suitable infrared radiation absorbent particles (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches that the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material comprises heat absorbing particles (page 15, lines 1-3). Li does not teach lanthanum hexaboride (LaB6) particles or metal-doped tungsten oxide particles. Torr further teaches use of lanthanum hexaboride particles (paragraph 0026). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the LaB6 of Torr in the product of Li because these are suitable infrared radiation absorbent particles (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches that the sensor comprises a LIDAR (page 1, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches that the first wavelength is between 750 nm and 2500 nm (page 4, lines 11-13). “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 750 to 2500 nm reads on the claimed range of 750 to 1650 nm.
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches that the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material has a multi-layer construction (page 6, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches that a wedge-shaped interlayer is known (page 6, lines 23-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the wedge angle of the prior art in the invention of Li because these are useful for head-up display applications (page 6, lines 23-25).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach the thickness of the interlayer structure. One reading Li as a whole would appreciate that Li is not particularly concerned with this feature, and the interlayer thickness would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Torr teaches a laminated glazing where the interlayer structure has a thickness of 0.76 mm (paragraph 0026).
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 could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the interlayer with a thickness in the range 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 10, Li teaches that the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material comprises polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), or polyurethane (PU) (page 5, lines 11-16).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches the laminated glazing but does not teach the thickness of the glazing sheets. One reading Li as a whole would appreciate that Li is not particularly concerned with this feature, and the glass thickness would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Torr teaches a laminated glazing where the first and second sheet of glazing material have a thickness of 2.1 mm each (paragraph 0026).
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 could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the interlayer with a thickness in the range 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 12, Li teaches that the first transmittance is greater than 90% (page 5, lines 4-7).
Regarding claims 13-15, Li teaches that the entire first portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material comprises an anti-reflective coating thereon, and the anti-reflective coating covers at least a part of the second portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material (page 22, lines 2-4, where Li’s silence regarding the coating existing on only a portion of the glazing suggests that the coating covers the entire surface).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, neither Li nor Torr teaches that the anti-reflective coating increases the first transmittance by at least 1% at one or more wavelength or increases transmittance at a normal incidence at one or more wavelength. However, the purpose of an anti-reflective coating is to reduce reflectance of the incident light and therefore, to increase absorbance or transmission of the incident light. Therefore, it only follows that the anti-reflective coating would increase both the first and normal transmittances by at least 1% at one or more wavelengths. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply an anti-reflective coating when an increase in transmittance is desired.
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches that the first transmittance is >90% (page 5, lines 4-7). “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 >90% reads on the claimed range of 80-95%.
Regarding claim 21, Li teaches that the interlayer structure facing at least part of a first portion of the second major surface of the first sheet of glazing material, the first portion of the second major surface of the first sheet of glazing material being opposite the first portion of the first major surface of the first sheet of glazing material, comprises a second sheet of interlayer material different to the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material such that the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material is part of the second region (page 17, lines 20-21) and
the second sheet of interlayer material is part of the first region and wherein the second sheet of interlayer material having a higher transmittance at the first wavelength compared to the transmittance at the first wavelength of the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (page 17, line 28 – page 18, line 5).
Regarding claim 22, Li teaches that the second sheet of interlayer material is positioned in an opening in the first sheet of adhesive interlayer material (page 17, line 28 – page 18, line 5).
Regarding claim 23, Li teaches that the second sheet of interlayer material has first and second opposing major surfaces, the first major surface of the second sheet of interlayer material facing the first sheet of glazing material and the second major surface of the second sheet of interlayer material facing the second sheet of glazing material and wherein the first or second major surface of the second sheet of interlayer material is provided with an adhesive (page 17, line 21, where the interlayer material may be adhesive by functioning as an adhesive even if it is not called an adhesive).
Regarding claim 24, Li teaches that the second sheet of interlayer material is an adhesive sheet of interlayer material (page 17, line 21, where the interlayer material may be adhesive by functioning as an adhesive even if it is not called an adhesive).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/025360 Li et al in view of US 2010/0189996 Torr et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2020/007939 Li et al (hereinafter Li2).
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of Torr teaches the laminated glazing. Neither Li nor Torr teach that the first region has a visible light transmission greater than the second region. Li2 teaches a laminated glazing for vehicles where an anti-reflective coating is located only on the first region (page 14, lines 1-5). Because anti-reflective coatings reduce reflectance and therefore increase absorbance and transmittance, the glazing of Li2 would exhibit a first region has a visible light transmission greater than the second region.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the local anti-reflective coating of Li2 in the product of Li because optimal performance of the LiDAR sensor requires adequate light transmission. Therefore, a localized antireflective (AR) coating for IR light within the optically transparent area 22 will allow the LiDAR sensor to work more efficiently (page 14, lines 1-5).
Please note that while Li2 is referring to IR light, the same would occur for visible light, and LiDAR sensors use visible light as well as IR.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the wedge-shaped interlayer have been considered but are moot because Examiner has applied a the new interpretation.
Applicant's arguments filed May 6, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li does not disclose the absorbing particle. However, the exact particle composition is taught by Torr. Li does teach the presence of particles and particle size.
Applicant argues that Li does not each a wedge-shaped interlayer. However, this is taught in the background section of Li.
Applicant argues that Torr does not teach the TTS% of less than 65%. However, it is unclear why Applicant believes this is not taught.
Applicant appears to argue that Li and Torr are not combinable references. However, it is clear that both Li and Torr are in the same field of endeavor of laminated glazings.
Conclusion
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 on 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
Prosecution Insights