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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 10 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-7 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 1 has the following issues of indefiniteness:
-“its” in the 4th line of claim 1, as it is unclear what is the referent of “its” (either glass sheets or the ionoplast layer);
-“its” in the 8th line of claim 1, as it is unclear what is the referent of “its” (either polycarbonate sheets or the polyurethane layer);
-“where the facing glass sheets are separated with double-sided tape from the facing polycarbonate sheets forming an argon chamber, but they are joined and sealed with urethane in its internal perimeter section” (emphases added) has the following issues of indefiniteness:
-“forming an argon chamber” is a dangling modifier, and it is unclear what it modifies (and here, what forms the argon chamber);
-it is unclear what the respective referents of “they” and “its”;
-as there are two different internal perimeter sections, it is unclear where the perforation regions are located.
Solely in view of compact prosecution, an attempt is made to parse the metes and bounds of claim 1. Claim 1 is considered to recite:
-a curved antiballistic glass armor, comprising:
-an external section having first and second glass sheets of equal size, the first and second glass sheets laminated with an ionoplast layer;
- an internal section having first and second polycarbonate sheets of equal size, the first and second polycarbonate sheets laminated with a polyurethane layer;
wherein the internal section has a lateral dimension in a first direction less than a lateral dimension of the external section in the first direction, such that a portion of the external section extends beyond a periphery of the internal section and forms a flange;
-wherein the external section is spaced from the internal section by a double-sided tape, the double-sided tape extending along a periphery of the internal section and partially defining an air chamber, the air chamber containing argon:
wherein the external section, the internal section, and the double-sided tape are joined and sealed with a urethane edge component extending along a periphery of the internal section,
wherein the urethane edge component comprises two perforation regions.
As claims 2-7 depend on claim 1, and as the respective limitations of the dependent claims do not resolve the aforementioned issue in claim 1, claims 2-7 are also held to be rejected.
In claim 2, each of “the laminate of the external glass sheet 16”, “the laminate of the internal glass sheet 17”, “the laminate of the external polycarbonate sheet 20”, and “the laminate of the internal polycarbonate sheet 21” lack antecedent basis. Due to the numerous issues of indefiniteness, no attempt is made to interpret claim 2 until enough issues of indefiniteness have been resolved.
In claim 3, “the internal part” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to, as the double-sided tape separates the external section from the internal section, as opposed to separating the facing glass sheets from the facing polycarbonate sheets.
Claim 1 is further objected to, as where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps in the body of the claim, the body of the claim should be separated from the preamble of the claim. In addition, each element or step of the body of the claim should be clearly delineated (e.g. under a new heading/subheading). (See 37 CFR 1.75(i), MPEP 608.01(m)).
Claim 1 is further objected to as it includes a period between the words “expelled” and “air” in the last line.
Claims 2, 3, and 5-7 are objected to, as “because” is not a recognized transition. It is suggested that “wherein” or “whereby” be used instead.
Correction is required for each of the issues identified in the Claim Objections section.
Allowable Subject Matter
Subject matter re: total thickness of the claimed curved antiballistic glass armor (which Applicant sought to recite in claim 7) would be allowable if written to 1) include all of the limitations of claim 1 and 2) be free of all issues of indefiniteness and objectionable claim language. and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Objection to the Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons:
-same label number being used to denote different and distinct elements (e.g. item 33 for respective internal perimeter section of both polyurethane layer 32 and urethane 23);
-lack of clarity of metes and bounds of various items (including items 18 and 33 in Fig. 4);
-lack of clarity in showing external perimeter section, as this is not drawn to be associated with the ionoplast layer but is instead associated with each of the glass sheets;
-lack of clarity in showing internal perimeter section, as this is not drawn to be associated with the polyurethane layer but is instead associated with each of the polycarbonate sheets.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CO 40892 (Applicant’s own prior work cited in the IDS and admitted to have been published more than one year before the filing date of the Instant Application) in view of U.S. 2011/0072961 A1 (“Jungkuist”) and U.S. 2020/0408032 A1 (“Schlögl).
Considering claims 1 and 3-5, it is noted that CO 40892 discloses all limitations mentioned in ¶ 4 above (and in each of dependent claims 3-5), with the exception of: a) usage of an urethane edge component and b) an urethane edge component comprising two perforations. (CO 40892 pg. 3 line 12-34 and Figs. 1 and 2). CO 40892 is analogous art, for it is directed to the same field of endeavor as that of the instant application (bulletproof glass). It is noted that CO 40892 discloses the usage of SentryGlas as interlayer material between the glass sheets, and this material is known to be made of ionoplast, according to its manufacturer Kuraray.
Re: usage of an urethane edge component, it is known in the art of bulletproof glass that an urethane edge backfill is used in conjunction with double sided tape to join two spaced apart panes of a bulletproof glass. (Jungkuist ¶ 0041 and Fig. 6). It would have been obvious, to a person of ordinary skill at the time of the claimed invention, to have utilized an urethane edge backfill in addition to double-sided tape to space and define an air space between two panes, as the urethane edge backfill confers additional sealing for the air space. (Id. ¶¶ 0039 and 0040).
Re: the provision of two perforations, it is known in the art of insulated glazings units (IGUs, viz. a glazing unit having spaced apart panes) that to introduce argon into a between-pane air space of an IGU, a gas inlet and a gas outlet should be provided as through-holes in perimeter edge sealing, such that the between-pane air space can be filled with a desired insulating gas such as argon before being subsequently sealed by a sealant. (Schlögl ¶¶ 0049 and 0059). As such, the provisioning of such through holes to the urethane edge backfill of CO 40892 and Jungkuist, to allow introduction of argon, before such through holes are then subsequently closed is obvious, as doing so allows the between-pane air space to be filled with an insulating gas.
CO 40892 in view of Jungkuist and Schlögl renders obvious claims 1 and 3-5.
Considering claim 6, with the bulletproof glass of CO 40892 and Jungkuist and Schlögl being made of a construction similar to that of the Instant Application (including usage of glass materials and polymeric materials), it stands to reason that the resulting laminate has a substantially similar areal density (which is not affected by thickness) as that of the Instant Application.
Concluding Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zheren Jim Yang whose telephone number is (571)272-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30 - 7:30 ET.
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.
/Z. Jim Yang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781