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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 19, line 5, the examiner suggests --[[the]] a property-- to improve claim readability since this is the first recitation of a property of the solar-control coating. Since a solar-control coating implicitly has a property, the examiner does not find insufficient antecedent basis for claiming “the property”.
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, 3-6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little (US 3074466) in view of Lingle (US 2002/0064662 A1) and Herrington (US 4952227).
Regarding claim 1, Little teaches a method for manufacturing a laminated glass comprising an outer glass plate, an inner glass plate and an interlayer sandwiched between the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate (Figure 2; column 2, lines 20-27), the method comprising: providing the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate; pairing the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate, and inserting the interlayer between the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate to form an assembly (column 2, lines 70-72; column 3, lines 1-6); and heating and pressurizing the assembly to laminate the outer glass plate, the interlayer, and the inner glass plate together to form a laminated glass (column 3, lines 32-49).
Little differs from claim 1 in that:
i. Little does not recite the laminated glass is a solar-control laminated glass.
ii. Little does not teach forming a solar-control coating on a surface of at least one of the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate.
iii. Little does not recite heating the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate; hot-bending the heated outer glass plate and the heated inner glass plate in separate hot-bending operations, each glass plate being hot-bent individually, to obtain a respective glass-plate shape suitable for a subsequent pairing of the hot-bent outer glass plate, the interlayer, and the inner glass plate together to form a laminated glass.
(i) and (ii) Little is directed to forming a windshield (column 1, line 26). In this art, it is known to form a solar-control coating on an inner surface of the outer glass plate to form a solar-control laminated glass which provides solar management by reflection of infrared (IR) radiation. See Lingle (Figures 1-2; paragraphs 3, 7, 76, 83 and 87). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide the above noted advantage in accordance with the teachings of Lingle.
(iii) Little teaches shaping the glass plates prior to pairing (column 2, lines 70-72), but does not provide details as to the shaping process. In the art of shaping glass plates for windshields, Herrington teaches heating the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate (column 3, lines 43-55); hot-bending the heated outer glass plate and the heated inner glass plate in separate hot-bending operations, each glass plate being hot-bent individually (separate operations and bending individually satisfied by non-simultaneous bending of the plates; column 3, lines 2-5; column 5, lines 8-18; column 6, lines 16-22; column 8, lines 12-18; Figures 1-2), to obtain a respective glass-plate shape suitable for a subsequent pairing of the hot-bent outer glass plate, the interlayer, and the inner glass plate together to form a laminated glass (column 1, lines 5-19 and 35-37; column 2, lines 41-48; column 3, lines 43-55; Figure 1). Thus Herring teaches a known suitable shaping process for shaping the glass plates of Little. Additionally, Herring teaches the shaping process allows for continuous processing of glass plates with different thickness or composition and differentially heating to improve the bending operation and the final fit in the laminated structure (column 2, lines 45-48; column 12, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to shape the glass plates in a known suitable manner and/or to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teachings of Herrington.
Regarding claims 3-4, Lingle was applied above for forming a desirable solar-control coating which provides solar management. Lingle clearly teaches these additional limitations for forming an IR reflective solar-control coating. A
Regarding claim 5, the solar-control coating of Lingle is directed to the IR reflective coating alternative of intervening claim 4, i.e. the examiner has satisfied the IR reflective alternative. The further limitation in claim 5 directed to the low-emissivity coating alternative is directed to an alternative which is not required. Accordingly, claim 5 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 6, Herrington was applied above for suggesting the claimed hot-bending step to shape the glass plates. Herrington further suggests heating the glass plates under different heating conditions to ensure each plate, which may have different properties, is optimally heated for subsequent bending (column 1, lines 35-39; column 5, lines 41-45; column 6, lines 20-22 and 51-54; column 11, lines 59-68; column 12, lines 1-14). In the modified method of Little a solar control coating which reflects IR radiation is applied to the outer glass plate as suggested by Lingle, and thus the outer glass plate naturally would be expected to have different heating characteristics than the inner glass plate, which is not provided with such a coating. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified process of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimally heat the glass plates for bending, as suggested by Herrington.
Regarding claim 19, Herrington was applied above for suggesting the claimed hot-bending step to shape the glass plates. As noted above, Herrington further suggests heating the glass plates under different heating conditions to ensure each plate, which may have different properties, is optimally heated for subsequent bending (column 1, lines 35-39; column 5, lines 41-45; column 6, lines 20-22 and 51-54; column 11, lines 59-68; column 12, lines 1-14). In the modified method of Little a solar control coating which reflects IR radiation is applied to the outer glass plate as suggested by Lingle, and thus the outer glass plate naturally would be expected to have different heating characteristics than the inner glass plate, which is not provided with such a coating. Herrington suggests hot-bending the glass plates to achieve a same curvature for subsequent pairing by nesting (column 6, lines 16-20; column 8, lines 12-18). Additionally, it is reasonably clear from Little that the glass plates have the same curvature because they are shaped first and then an interlayer is provided therebetween for joining the plates together without any trapped air or gas between the plates (column 1, lines 21-37; column 2, lines 20-27 and 70-72; column 3, lines 1-3 and 32-49; see also Figures 2-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified process of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimally heat the glass plates for bending and to provide a same curvature for nesting, as suggested by the above noted teachings of Herrington and Little.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Lingle and Herrington as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 19 above, and further in view of Bard (WO 2019/074901 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Lingle was applied above to suggest applying an IR reflective coating on the outer glass plate. However, there is no teaching in Little or Lingle of forming first and second solar-control coatings with different emissivities on the outer glass plate and the inner glass plate, respectively. As to the inner glass plate, Bard suggests providing a low-emissivity solar-control coating on the vehicle interior surface of the inner glass plate to effectively reflect heat back inside the vehicle in a colder outside environment to reduce costs and improve driver and passenger comfort (paragraph 86; Figure 7). Any reflective coating is considered to satisfy a solar-control coating since it is capable of reflecting solar energy, or because it naturally reflects at least some solar energy in use regardless of its intended function.
The outer plate reflective coating suggested by Lingle and the inner plate low emissivity coating suggested by Bard would be expected to have different emissivities in view of their different functions, i.e. reflecting external solar energy vs. reflecting internal thermal energy. Alternatively, it is noted that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Here the general claimed conditions of providing different solar-control coatings on the outer and inner glass plates have been satisfied. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art would have engaged in routine experimentation to optimize each coating for its intended function, naturally providing at least a small difference in emissivity of the coatings.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified process of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a low-emissivity coating on the inner glass plate to achieve the above noted advantages in accordance with the teaching of Bard, and because one having ordinary skill in the art would have optimized each coating according to its function as a matter of routine experimentation, thereby naturally providing at least slightly different emissivities, for the reasons provided above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Lingle and Herrington as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 19 above, and further in view of De Ridder (US 2013/0008209 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Herrington was applied above for suggesting the claimed hot-bending step to shape the glass plates. Herrington clearly teaches hot bending against a bending mold, but does not teach a high-temperature resistant polymer mixture is provided on a surface of the bending mold in contact with the glass plates. However, this limitation is generally known in the glass bending art for separating the hot glass form a molding surface to achieve the desired shaping. See De Ridder (Abstract; Figure 1; paragraphs 2, 6, 23-24 and 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified process of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the hot bending of glass sheets in a known manner with a known suitable separating material, as evidenced by De Ridder.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Lingle, Herrington and De Ridder as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Poisson (US 4433493).
Regarding claim 8, De Ridder was applied above for suggesting the claimed mixture of a temperature resistant polymer and a metal yarn as a separating material. De Ridder further suggests the separating material may be a fabric and the high temperature resistant polymer may be para-aramid fibers (paragraphs 24, 32 and 49). De Ridder does not recite the para-aramid may be poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide. However, this is a known high temperature resistant para-aramid used to make fibers for high temperature resistant fabrics. Kevlar is a commercially available poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide fiber. See Poisson (column 2, lines 30-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide aramid fibers as the aramid fibers suggested by De Ridder in the modified method of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to known high temperature resistant poly-p-phenylene terephthalamide para-aramid fibers as the high temperature resistant para-aramid fibers suggested by De Ridder, as evidenced by Poisson.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Lingle and Herrington as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 19 above, and further in view of Decant (FR 2838455 A1, referencing attached machine translation), and optionally further in view of De Ridder.
Regarding claims 7-8, Herrington was applied above for suggesting the claimed hot-bending step to shape the glass plates. Herrington clearly teaches hot bending against a bending mold, but does not teach a high-temperature resistant polymer mixture is provided on a surface of the bending mold in contact with the glass plates. However, Decant teaches it is known to separate the hot glass from handling components during shaping to achieve the desired shaping. The separating material may be a knit fabric comprising a mixture of metal yarn and poly-p-phenylene benzobisoxazole high temperature resistant polymer fiber (page 1, lines 16-32; page 2, lines 16-42; page 3; page 4, lines 21-30). Decant further teaches advantages of this fabric including low marking and high longevity (page 3, lines 1-3). While Decant does not explicitly recite providing the material on a surface of the bending mold in contact with the glass plates, it is clear from De Ridder that such separating fabrics are used in this manner during hot bending of glass (paragraphs 2, 4 and 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these additional limitations in the modified process of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the of shaping glass sheets in a known manner with a known suitable separating material or a known separating material having the above noted advantages, as evidenced by Decant, and optionally further evidenced by De Ridder for explicitly teaching such separating material may be provided on the surface of a bending mold.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Little in view of Lingle and Herrington as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 19 above, and further in view of Gervelmeyer (WO 2021/099246 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lingle was applied above for forming a desirable solar-control coating which provides solar management. Lingle does not teach the additional claimed coating comprising carbon black, graphite or mixture thereof on the solar-control coating. However, a top coating layer comprising graphite is known in the related art for forming a protective coating on the solar-control coating. See Gervelmeyer (paragraphs 27 and 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide this additional limitation in the modified method of Little because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a protective coating layer in accordance with the teachings of Gervelmeyer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 are allowed.
These claims are allowable for the reasons provided on page 11 of the previous office action, mailed 13 May 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Herrington’s single-line successive-sheet processing in one bending station does not satisfy the claimed separate hot-bending operations. The examiner respectively disagrees. Since Herrington bends individual sheets rather than bending them simultaneously as a pair, the bending operations are considered separate. The claims do not require bending the plates in different bending stations or on different lines.
Applicant argues Lingle does not teach a differential curvature problem caused by coating induced thermal differences. In response, the modified method of Lingle provides a solar-control coating on one plate (or different coatings on the respective plates) such that there would naturally be thermal differences between the plates. It is clear from Herrington that plates with different heating characteristics should be heated differently for optimal temperature before bending to achieve uniformity of shape, improved bending and improved final fit of the laminated structure (column 5, lines 41-53; column 11, lines 59 to column 12, line 14).
Applicant argues the use of known suitable heating in modifying Little with Herrington is a mere conclusion. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Little teaches shaping, but does not provide details as to the shaping. Herrington provides the details for a suitable or advantageous shaping process. Accordingly, the rejection is not based on a mere conclusion, but rather is based on the evidence provided by Herrington.
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 MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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 A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights