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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed invention of:
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 15
Claim 18
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
The depicted materials in Figs. 1-4 are not in agreement with the described and claimed invention (MPEP 608.02 V and IX).
The unlabeled rectangular box(es) (Fig. 5) shown in the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
Applicant has provided special definitions (MPEP 2173.01, 2173.05(a) III, and 2111.01 IV):
In the context of the invention, "inner pane" refers to the pane of the composite pane facing the interior (in particular, the vehicle interior). (p. 5)
"Outer pane" refers to the pane facing the external surroundings. (p. 5)
The term "upper edge" refers to that edge which is intended, in the installed
position, to point upward. (p. 5)
The term "lower edge" refers to that edge which is intended, in the installed position, to point downward. (p. 5)
In the case of a windshield, the upper edge is often also referred to as the "roof edge" and the lower edge as the "engine edge". (p. 5)
In the context of the invention, "exterior-side surface" refers to that primary surface intended to face the external surroundings in the installed position. (p. 5)
In the context of the invention, "interior- side surface" refers to that primary surface intended to face the interior in the installed position. (p. 5)
Considered as a "transparent coating" is a coating that has an average transmittance in the visible spectral range of at least 70%, preferably at least 72.5%, i.e., does not significantly restrict vision through the pane. (p. 6)
The term "a dielectric module" thus means dielectric layer which can be formed from a single ply, i.e., a single dielectric layer, or from multiple plies of dielectric layers. (p.6)
In this context, the term "silver layer" designates a layer formed on the basis of silver. (p. 7)
The term “total transmittance” is based on the process for testing the light permeability of motor vehicle windows specified by ECE-R 43, Annex 3, § 9.1. (p. 13)
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiel (US 8686319).
Regarding Claim 1,
A composite pane, comprising an outer pane (12, Figs. 1-3) having an exterior-side surface (14) and an interior-side surface (16), an inner pane (18) having an exterior-side surface (20) and an interior-side surface (22), and a thermoplastic intermediate layer (24), which joins the interior-side surface of the outer pane to the exterior-side surface of the inner pane, wherein the composite pane has at least one sun shading coating between the outer pane and the inner pane, wherein
the sun shading coating (Fig. 3, annotated below) comprises, starting from the inner pane toward the outer pane, a layer sequence
first dielectric module,
first silver layer,
second dielectric module,
second silver layer,
third dielectric module,
third silver layer,
fourth dielectric module,
wherein the first, second and third silver layers have, relative to one another, a geometrical layer thickness of Ag2>Ag1>Ag3, where Ag1 is the geometrical layer thickness of the first silver layer, Ag2 is the geometrical layer thickness of the second silver layer, and Ag3 is the geometrical layer thickness of the third silver layer, and the first, second and third silver layers of the sun shading coating have a relative geometrical layer thickness of 1.0<Ag1/Ag3 and 1.2<Ag2/Ag3<2.
PNG
media_image1.png
455
809
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ag1 (70)
25 A to 300 A
Col. 9, lines 39-50
Ag2 (58)
25 A to 200 A
Col. 8, line 65-Col. 9, line 8
Ag3 (46)
25 A to 300 A
Col. 8, lines 23-31
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges. MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 2,
wherein the first, second, third and fourth dielectric modules have a relative optical layer thickness of M2/M1≥1.9, M2/M3≥0.8, and M2/M4≥2, where M1 is the optical layer thickness of the first dielectric module, M2 is the optical layer thickness of the second dielectric module, M3 is the optical layer thickness of the third dielectric module and M4 is the optical layer thickness of the fourth dielectric module.
M1 (74)
(25 A to 200 A) + (25 A to 500 A)
Col. 9, line 57-Col. 10, line 5
M2 (62)
((50 A to 200 A ) x 2) + (100 A to 800 A)
Col. 9, lines 16-34
M3 (50)
((50 A to 200 A) x 2) + (100 A to 800 A)
Col. 8, lines 45-64
M4 (40)
(100 A to 500 A) + (up to 1000 A)
Col. 7, line 18-Col. 8, line 22
The geometrical thickness are summarized above and the materials disclosed in Thiel result in optical layer thicknesses in a variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlapping with the claimed ranges. MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 3, The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric module, the second dielectric module, the third dielectric module, and/or the fourth dielectric module have at least one dielectric layer based on silicon nitride (ex. Col. 7, lines 22-38).
Regarding Claim 4,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric module, the second dielectric module, the third dielectric module, and/or the fourth dielectric module include at least one first dielectric layer based on silicon nitride and at least one second dielectric layer based on zinc oxide (ex. Col. 7, lines 22-38).
Regarding Claim 5,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric module, the second dielectric module, the third dielectric module, and/or the fourth dielectric module include at least one first dielectric layer based on silicon nitride, at least one second dielectric layer based on zinc oxide, and at least one third dielectric layer based on a mixed tin-zinc oxide (ex. Col. 7, lines 22-38, Col. 8, lines 45-49, Col. 9, lines 16-21, and Col. 9, lines 57-62).
Regarding Claim 6,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the sun shading coating includes, above and/or below the first, second and third silver layers, in each case at least one metallic blocking layer, which has a geometrical thickness of less than 1 nm (48 - Col. 8, lines 32-44; 60 - Col. 9, lines 9-15; 72 - Col. 9, lines 51-56).
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges. MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 7,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the first silver layer, the second silver layer, and the third silver layer have, in each case, a geometrical thickness of 5 nm to 25 nm.
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges (see table for Claim 1 above). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 8,
The composite pane according to claim 7, wherein the first silver layer has a geometrical thickness of 7 nm to 14 nm, the second silver layer has a geometrical thickness of 7 nm to 16 nm, and the third silver layer has a geometrical thickness of 6 nm to 13 nm.
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges (see table for Claim 1 above). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 9,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the first dielectric module, the second dielectric module, the third dielectric module, and the fourth dielectric module have, in each case, a geometrical thickness of 10 nm to 100 nm.
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges (see table for Claim 2 above). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 10,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the sun shading coating is applied on the exterior-side surface of the inner pane (ex. Fig. 2; also Col. 4, lines 7-26).
Regarding Claim 11,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the sun shading coating has at least two bus bars (96, 98, Fig. 1) via which the sun shading coating is connectable to an electrical voltage source.
Regarding Claim 12,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein heating wires are present between the exterior-side surface of the inner pane and the interior-side surface of the outer pane (Col. 13, lines 3-15).
Regarding Claim 13,
The composite pane according to claim 1, wherein the sun shading coating contains exactly three silver layers (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14,
A method for producing a composite pane according to claim 1 comprising:
a) applying a sun shading coating to the interior-side surface of the outer pane, or to the exterior-side surface of the inner pane, or introducing the sun shading coating into a thermoplastic intermediate layer (Fig. 2),
b) producing a layer stack comprising at least, in this order, the outer pane, the thermoplastic intermediate layer, and the inner pane (Fig. 2), and
c) joining the layer stack comprising at least the outer pane, the thermoplastic intermediate layer, and the inner pane to form the composite pane (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15,
A method comprising providing a composite pane according to claim 1 in a motor vehicle-preferably as a windshield, rear window, side window, and/or roof panel (ex. Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 16,
The composite pane according to claim 9, wherein the first dielectric module, the second dielectric module, the third dielectric module, and the fourth dielectric module have, in each case, a geometrical thickness of 20 nm to 90 nm.
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges (see table for Claim 2 above). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 17,
The composite pane according to claim 16, wherein the first dielectric module, the second dielectric module, the third dielectric module, and the fourth dielectric module have, in each case, a geometrical thickness of 70 nm to 85 nm.
A variety of the ranges disclosed by Thiel overlap with the claimed ranges (see table for Claim 2 above). MPEP 2144.05 I states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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). Accordingly, Thiel renders the claimed invention obvious.
Regarding Claim 18,
The method according to claim 15, wherein the composite pane is a windshield of a motor vehicle (Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those items on the 892 each teach elements of the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745