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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 26, 2026, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 10-13, 15, 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0177533 Griffiths et al.
Regarding claim 1, Griffiths teaches a glazing arrangement (paragraph 0003), comprising:
a first pane 101 having a first main surface (top surface) and a second main surface (bottom surface, figure 12), wherein the first pane is provided to at least partially transmit coupled light (paragraph 0060),
a light source 103 for producing light that can be coupled into the first pane (paragraph 0060),
a light extraction system 107 applied to said first main surface (figure 12),
wherein the light extraction system comprises a transparent coating 109 with a refractive index that differs from that of the air and that of the first pane (paragraph 0061, where the dots appear transparent), wherein the transparent coating is arranged in a planar manner at least sectionally on the first main surface (figure 12), the transparent coating having a first surface facing said first main surface and an opposing second surface facing away from said first main surface (figure 12), each of said first and second surfaces of the transparent coating being planar (paragraph 0046 teaching a rectangular cross-section such that both surfaces would be planar);
wherein the refractive index of the transparent coating is higher than that of the air and that of the first pane in an amount such that the light within the pane incident on the transparent coating is extracted out of the pane through first main surface and transparent coating due to the refractive index (paragraph 0061).
Regarding claim 2, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating is roughened (figure 12, where the body elements protrude from the surface creating a roughened surface).
Regarding claim 3, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating comprises multiple body elements 111 (figure 12).
Regarding claim 4, Griffiths teaches that the body elements are spheres (figure 12). Please note that while “spheres” has not been explicitly stated, the figures lend guidance regarding the envisioned structure and arrangement of the product, including the bead particles shown in figure 12).
Regarding claim 6, Griffiths teaches that the body elements are coated with a coating of titanium oxide (paragraph 0061, where particles within the body element comprise TiO2 such that particles include an exterior coating of TiO2).
Regarding claim 10, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating has patterning in the form of circular areas (figure 9).
Regarding claim 11, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating is arranged directly on the first main surface (figure 12).
Regarding claim 12, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating is arranged on the first main surface which has an interface with the air (figure 12).
Regarding claim 13, Griffiths teaches that the light source includes at least one or more light-emitting diodes (paragraph 0053).
Regarding claim 15, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating comprises titanium oxide (paragraph 0061, particles).
Regarding claim 18, Griffiths teaches that the body elements are spherical body elements (figure 12). Please note that while “spheres” has not been explicitly stated, the figures lend guidance regarding the envisioned structure and arrangement of the product, including the bead particles shown in figure 12).
Regarding claim 26, Griffiths teaches that the transparent coating is a microprism film (claim 42).
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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0177533 Griffiths et al.
Regarding claim 21, Griffiths teaches that the refractive index of the transparent coating is greater than that of the panel 101 (paragraph 0061). Griffiths does not, however, teach the RI of the panel, but does teach that varying the refractive index of the binder material provides a degree of control over light extraction that is independent of the size and shape of the light extraction feature (paragraph 0061). “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 greater than the panel reads on the claimed range of 2.5 or greater.
Claims 5, 7-9, 14, 19, 20 and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0177533 Griffiths et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0074251 Berard et al.
Regarding claim 5, Griffiths teaches the body elements but does not teach that they may be hollow. Berard teaches a luminous glazing unit where body elements 51 are hollow (paragraph 0038). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the solid body elements of Griffiths with the hollow body elements of Berard because this creates a larger refractive index difference (Berard paragraph 0038), where varying the refractive index controls the light extraction (Griffiths paragraph 0061).
Regarding claims 7, 19, 20 and 25, Griffiths teaches the body elements but does not teach their size. Griffiths does, however, teach that the size affects light extraction (paragraph 0045) such that it would be within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the ideal size based on the desired final product. Berard teaches a luminous glazing unit where Berard teaches that the body elements have a diameter of 65 microns (paragraph 0227).
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 light extraction system with body elements that have a size in the range 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 8, Berard teaches that the body elements have different sizes (paragraph 0227 teaching an average diameter, where “average” requires different sizes).
Regarding claim 9, Berard teaches that the body elements are made of glass material (paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 14, Griffiths teaches the glazing arrangement but does not teach a composite pane. Berard teaches a luminous glazing unit where the first pane is joined to a second pane via an intermediate layer 2 to form a composite pane (paragraphs 0241-0243 and figure 2).
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 composite pane with the glazing arrangement 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 22, Griffiths in view of Berard teaches most of the limitations with respect to claims 1, 3 and 9 above. Griffiths further teaches that the body elements are embedded within said transparent coating material and between the first and second surfaces thereof (figure 12).
Regarding claim 23, Griffiths teaches that the multiple body elements are embedded within a single layer of the transparent coating material (figure 12, where figure 12 is considered to be single layer because the multiple layer embodiments have been shown as including multiple layers as in figure 17).
Regarding claim 24, Griffiths teaches all of the limitations with respect to claims 4 and 23 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Griffiths does not teach the planar material. However, Griffiths teaches a transparent material configuration where the cross-section is a rectangle. Within the context of paragraph 0046, the reader can determine that the cross-section is a vertical cross-section such that the top and bottom surfaces would both be planar.
Applicant argues that one would not look to Berard to modify Griffiths because of the opposite RI teachings. However, both Berard and Griffiths are in the same field of endeavor. Furthermore, Berard teaches an embodiment that includes a high index of refraction difference (paragraph 0038).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the body elements have been considered but are moot because the new interpretation does not rely on any citation applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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