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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “the second metal sheet,” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 attempts to compare the thermal conductivity of the core to that of a medium density fiberboard (MDF) however, MDF is a material which can include varied compositions and materials which may affect the thermal conductivity. Thus it is unclear what would be considered a range to meet the limitation. The Thermal conductivity is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For sake of further examination if the any material that is not MDF and is not disclosed as including conductive material will be viewed as having a thermal conductivity lower than that of MDF.
Claims 6-8 are rejected as being dependent upon indefinite claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lloveras (WO2011/128483) with translation from ES2370201A1.
Regarding claims 1-4, Lloveras discloses a glass laminate comprising a core (3) having first and second surfaces with a side surface between, a first metal sheet on the first surface and a second metal sheet on the second surface (4 and 5). A glass sheet (1) on the first metal sheet (4) (Fig. 1). Lloveras teaches the metal sheets including steel (0017), as this is an exemplary material for the first metal sheet it is expected to have a coefficient of thermal expansion lower than that of aluminum at a temperature of 60oC.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Lloveras teaches the core including foam (0083), as it is a different material from MDF and is not disclosed as including conductive material it is expected to have a thermal conductivity lower than MDF.
Please note regarding claims 1 and 5, once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112. Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior art’s product.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Lloveras teaches the core including quartz (0089).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloveras (WO2011/128483) with translation from ES2370201A1 as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Myles et al. (US 2005/0003148).
Regarding claim 9, Lloveras discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Lloveras further teaches an adhesive applied on the metal surface (0071) and thus located between the first metal sheet and the glass substrate.
Lloveras does not teach an image layer between the first metal sheet and the glass substrate.
Myles, in the analogous field of glass laminates (0001), teaches a glass panel with a design and/or color providing media (0055) where the design is provided under the glass surface (Fig. 7-9 and 7E-9E).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the glass laminate of Lloveras to include an image layer between the first metal sheet and glass substate as taught by Myles, providing a visually attractive glass panel (0015).
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloveras.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Lloveras teaches the metal layers having the same thickness of between 0.1 to 3 mm or 0.4 and 3 mm (0100), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 0.2 to 0.8 mm (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Lloveras teaches the glass having a thickness of 0.5 to 15 mm (0079), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 0.1 to 0.7 mm (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 13-15, Lloveras discloses a glass laminate comprising a core (3) having first and second surfaces with a side surface between, a first metal sheet on the first surface and a second metal sheet on the second surface (4 and 5). A glass sheet (1) on the second metal sheet (4) (Fig. 1). Lloveras teaches the metal sheets including steel (0017) and the metal layers having the same thickness of between 0.1 to 3 mm or 0.4 and 3 mm (0100), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 0.2 to 0.8 mm (MPEP 2144.05). Lloveras teaches an adhesive applied on the metal surface (0071) and thus located between the second metal sheet and the glass substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Lloveras does not expressly teach a thermal transmittance of the core substrate is less than 18 W/m2K. However, Lloveras teaches the core including materials including plastic, foam, porcelain, or silica quartz (0033, 0035, 0038, and 0040), which are well known material having a low thermal transmittance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloveras as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2015/0246507).
Regarding claim 17, Lloveras discloses the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Lloveras does not teach a type of glass substrate as claimed in claim 17.
Brown, in the analogous field of glass laminates (0002), teaches a chemically strengthened glass sheet where the glass is selected from aluminosilicate or alkali-aluminoborosilicate glass (0015).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the glass of Lloveras to include aluminosilicate or alkali-aluminoborosilicate glass, as taught by Brown, as these glasses are suitable for providing higher hardness and scratch resistance and can help maintain the fresh aesthetic look and feel of the metal surface over time (0085).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloveras as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Myles.
Regarding claim 18, Lloveras discloses the limitations of claim 13 as discussed above. Lloveras does not teach the adhesive including at least one of ethylene-vinyl acetate resin, poly(vinyl butyral), UV curable resin, or an optically clear adhesive.
Myles, in the analogous field of glass laminates (0001), teaches a glass panel with an adhesive film (22) (Fig. 1 and 2). The adhesive including ethylenevinyl acetate or polyvinylbutyl (0063).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the adhesive of Lloveras to include an ethylenevinyl acetate or polyvinylbutryl as taught by Myles, providing a film which can colored using standard printers/printing techniques and provides color to the glass composite (0063),
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloveras and further in view of Myles.
Regarding claim 19, Lloveras discloses a glass laminate comprising a polymeric foam core (3) having first and second surfaces with a side surface between, a first metal sheet on the first surface and a second metal sheet on the second surface (4 and 5). A glass sheet (1) on the first metal sheet (4) (Fig. 1, 0083). Lloveras does not expressly teach a thermal transmittance of the core substrate is less than 18 W/m2K. However, Lloveras teaches the core including materials including plastic, foam which is a well-known material having a low thermal transmittance. Lloveras teaches the metal sheets including steel (0017) and the metal layers having the same thickness of between 0.4 and 3 mm (0100), overlapping the claimed thickness of about 0.2 to 0.8 mm (MPEP 2144.05).
Lloveras teaches an adhesive applied on the metal surface (0071) and thus located between the second metal sheet and the glass substrate. Lloveras does not teach an image layer between the first metal sheet and the glass substrate.
Myles, in the analogous field of glass laminates (0001), teaches a glass panel with a design and/or color providing media (0055) where the design is provided under the glass surface (Fig. 7-9 and 7E-9E).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious for the glass laminate of Lloveras to include an image layer between the first metal sheet and glass substate as taught by Myles, providing a visually attractive glass panel (0015).
Regarding claim 20, Lloveras teaches the core including wood of wood derived material in the alternative to core materials which to no include wood or woot derived material (0081-0089). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill that Lloveras teaches the substrate does not include wood or wood derived material as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
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.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781