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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 6, 2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s amendments filed April 7, 2026 have been entered. The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claims 2 & 4 and the addition of new claim 14. Claims 1, 3, & 5 – 14 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 6, the claim is dependent on claim 1, but amended independent claim 1 recites a separate and distinct species than claim 6. Amended claim 1 recites ‘the soundproofing zone forming a thinning of the glazed unit from the central part toward a border of the glazed unit’ (previous claim 4, shown in Figs. 8 & 12).
However, claim 6 recites “the soundproofing zone has at least one recess.” A recess (see Applicant’s Figs. 2 & 6 – 7) requires the thickness to increase on both sides of the h1min, such that the thickness increases between the h1min and the border of the glazing unit. Applicant’s Figs. 8 & 12 portraying the limitation of claim 1 cannot coexist in the same embodiment with a structure of claim 6 portrayed in Applicant’s 2 & 6 – 7. Applicant’s specification fails to teach or suggest a single embodiment that is a combination of the two species of the glazed unit, as recited in claim 6. Therefore, claim 6, which is dependent on amended claim 1, is considered new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 – 11, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al. (US 10,202,183 B2).
With regard to claim 1, McCarthy et al. teach an aircraft window assembly comprising an aircraft window incorporating a thickness variation across a length or width of the window (i.e. “glazing unit”). The thickness variation can help counteract the lensing effect caused by the deflection of the panels (12, 18) of the aircraft window assembly 10 (Col. 10, Lines 36 – 44).
The first panel (12) is thicker at the periphery and thinner toward the center. Alternatively, the first panel (12) could be thinner at the periphery and thicker toward the center (Figs. 8 & 21 – 22 & Col. 10, Lines 36 – 44).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McCarthy et al. teach the first thickness (i.e. “h1”) varies in the direction of length, but do not teach the thickness curve fits the equation:
h1(x) – h1min proportional to xn,
wherein x ranges from 0 – 1 along first length l (soundproofing zone that extends along the main surface), n is a real number strictly greater than 1, h1min is the minimum thickness, h1max is the maximum thickness, h1min > 0 and h1min ≤ 1/3*h1max.
McCarthy et al., teach the thickness variation can help counteract the lensing effect caused by the deflection of the panels (12, 18) of the aircraft window assembly 10 (Col. 10, Lines 36 – 44).
Therefore, based on the teachings of McCarthy et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the minimum thickness (h1min) relative to the maximum thickness (h1max) of the window panel (12) (“glazed unit”) as a function of x through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired counteraction of the lensing effect caused by the deflection of the panels (12, 18) of the aircraft window assembly (10). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
McCarthy et al. do not explicitly teach the region of thickness variation is a soundproofing zone.
However, a window (glazing unit) inherently has some degree of soundproofing properties and thus inherently has a soundproofing zone /.
MPEP 2112 [R-3] states:
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.” In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
With regard to claim 2, as shown in Fig. 8 above, comprising a central part and a peripheral part, the peripheral part being arranged at a periphery of the central part relative to the main surface and directly in contact with the central part, wherein the central part has a thickness h1max of the material in contact with the peripheral part of lesser thickness (h1).
With regard to claim 3, as shown in Fig. 8 above, the window panel (12) is a monolithic aircraft glazed unit.
With regard to claim 5, as shown in Figs. 8, 17 – 20, & 22, the window panel (12) comprises a central part that has two opposite edges, and wherein the peripheral part is arranged in contact with the two edges.
With regard to claim 8, McCarthy et al. teach a window assembly (10) (i.e., “glazed element”) comprising a second panel (18) are superimposed and at an elastomeric seal (28) located around the periphery (i.e., “least one spacer”) and configured to separate two panels (i.e., “glazed units”) (Col. 4, Lines 45 – 46 & Figs. 1 – 2, 5, 8, & 10). Although not shown in Fig. 8, McCarthy et al. explicitly teach the second panel (18) can also have a thickness variation across a width of the panel (18), as described above for the first panel (12) (Col. 10, Lines 45 – 47).
With regard to claim 10, as discussed above for claim 1, McCarthy et al. teach the window panel 12 (i.e., “glazed unit”) is a component of an aircraft window.
With regard to claim 11, as discussed above for claims 1 & 10, McCarthy et al. teach the window panel 12 (i.e., “glazed unit”) is a component of an aircraft window. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the panel as any window within the aircraft, including a windshield.
With regard to claim 14, Applicant’s originally filed specification, paragraph [0058], teaches an acoustic black hole is formed by a thinning of the glazed unit from the central part to an edge of the glazed unit. Furthermore, paragraph [0033] of the specification teaches “[w]hen the thickness hmin tends toward zero thickness, the transit time tends towards infinity. Thus, the incident bending wave is not reflected by an edge of the glazed unit 2, which makes it possible to increase the soundproofing of the glazed unit 2.”
As discussed above, McCarthy et al. teach the thickness variation h(x) decreases from the center to the peripheral such that h1min goes toward zero.
Therefore, the gradual thickness variation h(x) from the center to the periphery/border of the glass panel taught by McCarthy wherein h1min goes toward zero in the periphery of the panel inherently has increasing transit time of bending waves.
Claim(s) 7 & 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boure (US 2009/159362 A1).
With regard to claim 7, McCarthy et al. fail to teach the glazed unit comprises a visco-elastic dissipator, wherein the dissipator is mounted secured in contact with at least one part of the soundproofing zone, the dissipator being made of a visco-elastic material having a first loss factor n1 strictly greater than 0.05.
Boure et al. teach an acoustic laminated glazing (2) comprising a viscoelastic plastic insert (3) composed of at least two damping films (30/31) (i.e., “visco-elastic dissipator”) applied to the inside surface of two glass sheets (20/21) of the glazing for a vehicle (paragraph [0050] & Figs. 1 – 2). The damping films provide effective optimum sound damping performance over a wide range of temperatures (paragraph [0028]), such that the each of the damping films has a loss factor (tan δ) greater than 0.5 (paragraphs [0036] & [0042]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Boure et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a viscoelastic plastic insert composed of at least two damping films, wherein each of the damping films has a loss factor (tan δ) greater than 0.5, on the inner surface of panels for forming a laminated window (glazing) taught by McCarthy et al. for providing optimum sound damping performance over a wide range of temperatures.
With regard to claim 12, as discussed above for claim 7, each of the damping films taught by Boure et al. has a loss factor (tan δ) greater than 0.5 (paragraphs [0036] & [0042]), which is strictly greater than 0.10.
With regard to claim 13, as discussed above for claim 7, each of the damping films taught by Boure et al. has a loss factor (tan δ) greater than 0.5 (paragraphs [0036] & [0042]), which is strictly greater than 0.15.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCarthy et al., as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Taga et al. (WO 2014/162481 A1).
With regard to claim 9, McCarthy et al. teach the seal (28) (i.e., “spacer”) is elastomeric, but do not teach the spacer is formed by a visco-elastic material having a value of the real part of the Young’s modulus E’ less than 20 MPa.
Taga et al. teach a multilayered glass (3), such as a double-glazed glass (translation, pg. 1), comprising a sealing composition as spacers (1) (Figs. 2 & 11(a)). The sealing material (1) between the end portions of the glass for sealing the intermediate layer (translation, pg. 2) The sealing material (1) has a storage modulus (G’) (i.e., “Young’s modulus”) obtained by dynamic viscoelastic measurement of 1.5 x 105 Pa (0.15 MPa) or more. If G’ is less than the lower limit, the sealing material is too soft and the sheet shape cannot be sufficiently maintained (translation, pg. 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
160
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teaching of Taga et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust the Young’s modulus of a viscoelastic sealing material through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired softness for maintaining the shape of the window assembly (i.e., “glazing member”). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant is directed to the examiner’s response to said arguments in the advisory action mailed April 16, 2026.
In light of Applicant’s amendment of claim 1, the obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1, 6 – 7, & 12 – 13 is withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights