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 1-22 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 recites “the anti-reflective element being uncovered.” This is unclear because “being uncovered” is an action, not a state. It is unclear if the glazing as claimed has the hole in the covered or uncovered state, which would be claimed as “not covered” or including a limitation that excludes a cover. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as “being not covered” as examiner believes is intended. Claims 2-22 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
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, 6-18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111409314 Chen et al in view of WO 2020/214431 Bhatia et al.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a vehicle laminated glazing (paragraph 0002) with a given thickness (figure 2), comprising:
a first glass sheet 1 intended to be an exterior glazing (paragraph 0033), with a first external main face and a second internal main face oriented toward the passenger compartment (figure 2);
a lamination interlayer 3 made of polymer material (paragraph 0033) with a first main face oriented toward the second internal main face and a second main face opposite the first main face (figure 2);
a second glass sheet 2 intended to be an interior glazing (paragraph 0033) with a third main face on the side of the second internal main face and a fourth internal main face oriented toward a passenger compartment (figure 2),
a through-hole 23 in a thickness of the second glass sheet, the through-hole being centimetric and delimited by a wall (figure 2), and
in the through-hole, a piece 4 which is transparent at least at a working wavelength in the infrared range in a range extending from 780 nm to 1650 nm (paragraph 0034), which piece has an edge face spaced apart from the wall (figure 2),
the piece having a main bonding surface oriented toward the second internal main face and an interior surface opposite from the bonding surface (figure 2), the interior surface comprising an anti-reflective element at said working wavelength in the infrared range (paragraph 0034, where the block is called “anti-reflective”), the interior surface comprising the anti-reflective element being not covered by the second glass sheet and facing toward the passenger compartment (figure 2),
the vehicle laminated glazing further comprising a polymer bonding film 5, which is an adhesive and a thermoplastic film (paragraph 0039), separate from said polymer material of the piece (figure 2), transparent at least at said working wavelength in the infrared range (paragraph 0039),
when the lamination interlayer has an interlayer through-hole in line with said through-hole of the second sheet, the polymer bonding film is in adhesive contact with the second internal main face (figure 2).
“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 780 nm to 1650 nm reads on the claimed range of 800 nm to 1800 nm.
Chen does not explicitly teach spacing of the piece. However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed spacing does not impart patentability to the claims.
Chen does not explicitly teach the iron oxide content, claimed composition of the piece or thickness of the polymer bonding film. Bhatia teaches a glass laminate with two glass sheets and an interlayer (paragraph 0003) and other features.
Chen does not explicitly teach the lack of iron oxide in the glass. However, Chen’s silence on this feature suggests that Chen is not particularly concerned with the iron content of the glass, only the overall structure and transmittance of the through-hole. Bhatia teaches that the first glass sheet has a total iron oxide content by weight of 0% (paragraph 0026 teaching use of a soda lime silicate glass and paragraph 0027 teaching that soda lime silicate glass is substantially free of iron or iron oxide). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the glass composition of Bhatia in the product of Chen because these compositions allow for a high percentage of infrared transmission (paragraph 0027).
Chen does not explicitly teach the claimed composition of the piece. Bhatia teaches that the interlayer includes infrared transparent materials, and infrared transparent materials are made of a variety of polymer options (paragraph 0035). Because Bhatia does not teach the use of fillers or other additives, the examiner is taking the position that the piece is 100% polymer materials.
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 before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the polymer piece 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).
Chen does not explicitly teach the thickness of the polymer bonding film. However, Chen does teach that the polymer bonding film is the same thickness as the interlayer (figure 2), but is also silent regarding the thickness of the interlayer. Chen’s silence on this feature suggests that Chen is not particularly concerned with the thickness of the interlayer, and choosing an appropriate thickness would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Bhatia teaches that the interlayer is 0.30 mm to 3 mm in thickness (paragraph 0034).
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 before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the interlayer with the thickness 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 2, Chen teaches that the first glass sheet, the lamination interlayer, the piece with said anti-reflective element has a total transmission of at least 90.0% at the working wavelength (paragraph 0035, where the transmission discussed above may be in either direction).
Regarding claim 3, Chen teaches that the anti-reflective element comprises an anti-reflective coating on the interior surface (paragraph 0034, where the entire element is anti-reflective such that the surface is too).
Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches the piece and the wall (figure 2). Chen does not explicitly teach spacing of the piece. However, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed spacing does not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 7, Bhatia further teaches that the piece is made of polycarbonate or polymethyl methacrylate (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 8, Chen teaches that the bonding film is a thermoplastic (paragraph 0039, where the examiner is taking the position that Chen’s silence regarding plasticizer suggests that none is present).
Regarding claim 9, Chen teaches that the bonding film is a polymer film (paragraph 0039, where the examiner is taking the position that Chen’s silence regarding plasticizer suggests that none is present).
Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches that the lamination interlayer comprises a PVB (paragraph 0005), having an interlayer through-hole in line with the through-hole (figure 2). Please note that while the PVB teaching is in the prior art, this shows that PVB is known.
Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches that the polymer bonding film is a pressure-sensitive adhesive (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 12, Chen teaches that in the through-hole, the piece forms said selective filter (paragraph 0034). Chen does not explicitly teach the visible transmission. However, as Chen in view of Bhatia satisfies all of the previous limitations, the combination’s materials are indistinguishable from the claimed materials. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the combination’s glazing would also have a visible transmission of at most 10.0%. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established” (MPEP 2112.01 Section I).
Regarding claim 13, Chen teaches that the piece forms said selective filter (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 14, Chen teaches that the selective filter is said camouflaging film (paragraph 0036, where the piece blends in on transparent glass) on the second internal main face (figure 2), facing the through-hole, and even protruding under the third main face (figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Chen teaches an insert 6 (paragraph 0040) between the wall of the through-hole and the piece (figure 2).
Regarding claim 16, Chen teaches the through-hole but is silent regarding its size. One reading Chen as a whole would appreciate that Chen is not particularly concerned with the size of the hole and choosing an appropriate size would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the specific glazing and cameras used. Further, “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04 Section IV Part A). Therefore, without a showing of criticality, the claimed dimensions do not impart patentability to the claims.
Regarding claim 17, Chen teaches a local heating zone 7 under said through-hole on the bonding surface (paragraph 0041 teaching a variety of acceptable locations).
Regarding claim 18, Chen teaches that a heating layer is spaced apart from the bonding surface (paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 21, Chen teaches further comprising a functional coating 5 on the second internal main face (figure 2), wherein said functional coating has a first zone facing the through-hole (figure 2), the functional coating is transparent at said working wavelength in the first zone (paragraph 0039, whole adhesive is high-transparency).
Regarding claim 22, Chen teaches on the second internal main face a functional coating 7 extending over part of the vehicle laminated glazing, which functional layer is absorbent at said working wavelength (paragraph 0041, where the functional layer either reflects or absorbs the light) and:
which is absent from said through-hole at least in a central zone of said through-hole (paragraph 0041, removal area 71) and present at the edge of the through-hole between the second internal main face and the first main face of the lamination interlayer (paragraph 0041).
Claims 4, 5, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 111409314 Chen et al in view of WO 2020/214431 Bhatia et al as applied to claims 1, 3 and 17 above, and further in view of WO 2017/211641 Horak et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Chen in view of Bhatia teaches the laminated glazing, but does not teach that the anti-reflective material is made of porous silica. Horak teaches a vehicle glazing (page 1, lines 3-5), where an anti-reflective coating may be applied to the glass sheet and the anti-reflective coating is made of porous silica or a stack of dielectric layers having alternating low and high refractive indices (page 5, lines 3-9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the anti-reflective coatings of Horak in the product of Chen because an anti-reflective layer reduces reflection on the surface, potentially increasing transmission.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Chen teaches the heating layer is on the bonding surface (paragraph 0041 on the third surface). Chen does not teach bus bars or a wire. Horak teaches a vehicle glazing (page 1, lines 3-5), including a heating layer with two local busbars 6,7 and metal wires bonded to the lamination interlayer (page 3, line 26 – page 4, line 5) across the whole surface (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the heating layer construction of Horak in the product of Chen because this creates an electrically heated window (page 1, lines 9-12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 10, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Chen’s inorganic block have been considered. However, the material of Chen is replaced by the material of Bhatia. Applicant is arguing the teachings of a single reference, not the modification of the rejection.
Applicant argues that the materials of Bhatia are listed as interlayers only. However, layer 130 (shown in figures 3 and 4) can be any of the listed IR transparent materials (paragraph 0036). The IR transparent materials listed (paragraph 0035) are discussed as interlayer materials, but they are also used for filling the hole in the glass sheets as shown in figures 3 and 4.
Therefore, these materials are not limited to being sandwiched under pressure.
Applicant argues that the motivation to alter Chen’s material is conclusory. However, the KSR explanation discussed above shows that even if the motivation isn’t explicitly stated, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention could have combined the elements using known methods and there is no evidence that the polymer piece 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).
Applicant argues that the polymers of Bhatia would require a separate anti-reflective functionality. However, Applicant’s as-filed specification (paragraph 0060) teaches that suitable IR transparent materials include a polyacrylate, polymethyl methacrylate, a polycarbonate, a polyester, a polyurethane. These materials are also taught by Bhatia. Therefore, if these materials are suitable to meet the claim, Bhatia’s materials must also meet the claim.
Applicant argues that the newly added limitations are not taught. However, this is taught by Bhatia as discussed above.
Applicant argues that Bhatia’s layer 130 is on the exterior glazing. However, the location of the layer is not imported into Chen; the appropriate location has already been taught. Bhatia is used to teach the composition of the piece.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights