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 Objections
Claims 7, 9, 14 – 15 and 19 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claims 7, 14, 15, 19 and 20, “the acoustic layer” should read “the soundproofing layer”; and in claim 9, “the glazing” should read “the laminated glazing.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 8 – 11, 14 and 19 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 5 recites the limitation " he predetermined optimal acoustic temperature" in the wherein clause. It is unclear whether “the predetermined optimal acoustic temperature” refers to the setpoint temperature recited in claim 4 or to a different temperature. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites “the glazed element comprising a device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer and a closed-loop feedback controller.” Claim 1, from which claim 8 depends, already recites “a device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer” and “a controller.” It is unclear whether the device and controller recited in claim 8 are the same elements recited in claim 1 or additional elements, and it is unclear which controller is referred to by “the controller” in the remainder of the claim. For examination purposes they are interpreted as the same elements recited in claim 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the predetermined optimal acoustic temperature" in the last two lines of the claim. It is unclear whether “the predetermined optimal acoustic temperature” refers to the setpoint temperature recited in step c or to a different temperature. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer” in the limitation reciting the closed-loop feedback controller. The claim does not previously recite a device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer, so it is unclear whether such a device is a required element of the claimed glazed element. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 2, 12 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Astete et al. (WO 2019/111235 A1 – hereafter “Astete”) in view of Rosario et al. (WO 2020/221559 A1 – hereafter “Rosario”) in further view of Mercier et al. (US 12,459,235 B2 – hereafter “Mercier”).
As per claim 12, Astete teaches a glazed element for a vehicle comprising a laminated glazing, the laminated glazing comprising two glass sheets (outer glass layer 201, inner glass layer 202) and a soundproofing layer made of a viscoelastic material and arranged between the two glass sheets (see p. 10, ll. 28 – 32; p. 11, ll. 1 – 7).
However, Astete does not teach a device for measuring a temperature of the soundproofing layer.
Rosario teaches a device for measuring the temperature of a layer within a laminated vehicle glazing (temperature sensor 16), the sensor being arranged within or adjacent to the intermediate layer and connected to a control unit (see abstract and paragraph beginning “Inside the windshield 1 and adjacent to the optoelectronic functional element 4”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Astete in view of Rosario by incorporating a device for measuring a temperature of the soundproofing layer, in order to obtain the actual temperature of the layer within the laminated glazing as an input for controlling the heating of the glazing.
However, Astete in view of Rosario does not teach the claimed value of the real part E’ of the Young’s modulus of the viscoelastic material.
Mercier teaches a laminated glazing for a vehicle wherein the interlayer is an acoustic PVB having a shear modulus G’ of less than 20 MPa at frequencies of between 500 Hz and 5000Hz at a temperature of 20°C (see col. 3, ll. 38 – 51). A shear modulus G’ of less than 20MPa corresponds to a real part E’ of the Young’s modulus of no more than about 60 MPa (
6.10
3
N
.
c
m
-
2
), which is less than the claimed 5.8.107 N.cm (5.8.10^11 Pa) within the claimed temperature and frequency ranges.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Astete in view of Rosario by incorporating the teachings of Mercier to select an acoustic PVB interlayer having the modulus taught by Mercier, in order to reduce the sound passing through the glazing.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The glazed element according to claim 12, comprising a device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer.”
Astete teaches a glazed element for a vehicle, comprising a device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer, including a resistive heating circuit (see p. 14, ll. 28 – 32).
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites “The glazed element according to claim 12, wherein the laminated glazing comprises an outer first face and an outer fourth face opposite the first face, and wherein the device for measuring the temperature of the acoustic layer comprises a first sensor configured to measure the temperature of the first face and a second sensor configured to measure the temperature of the fourth face.”
Astete teaches the laminated glazing comprising an outer first face (surface one 101) and an outer fourth face (surface four 104) opposite the first face (see p. 10, ll. 5 – 15), but fails to teach the first and second sensors.
Rosario teaches a laminated vehicle glazing, wherein temperature sensors (16) are arranged to measure temperatures at multiple faces of the laminated glazing (see paragraph beginning “In principle, the temperature sensor can be arranged anywhere in the vehicle...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Astete in view of Rosario in further view of Mercier to incorporate a first sensor configured to measure the temperature of the first face and a second sensor configured to measure the temperature of the fourth face, as taught by Rosario, in order to enable more precise determination of the temperature of the soundproofing layer.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites “The glazed element according to claim 2, comprising a closed-loop feedback controller, the device for measuring the temperature of the soundproofing layer being capable of measuring a temperature of the soundproofing layer and of transmitting information of the temperature of the soundproofing layer to the closed-loop feedback controller, the closed-loop feedback controller being capable of transmitting control information to the device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer.”
Astete fails to teach a closed-loop feedback controller.
Rosario teaches a laminated vehicle glazing, comprising a closed-loop feedback controller (heating control unit 14 comprising a proportional, integral, or differential control circuit), the device for measuring the temperature (temperature sensor 16) being capable of measuring a temperature of the layer and of transmitting information of the temperature to the closed-loop feedback controller, the closed-loop feedback controller being capable of transmitting control information to the device for conditioning the temperature (heating resistor layer 11) (see abstract and paragraph beginning “In an advantageous embodiment...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Astete in view of Rosario in further view of Mercier to incorporate a closed-loop feedback controller, as taught by Rosario, in order to automatically regulate the heating of the glazing based on the measured temperature.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “The glazed element according to claim 16, comprising a control unit configured to: control a measurement of the temperature of the soundproofing layer by the device for measuring the temperature, transmit the information of the temperature of the soundproofing layer to the controller, determine a value representative of a difference between the temperature of the soundproofing layer and a setpoint temperature, control the determination of control information by the controller from the value representative of the difference, and transmit the control information to the device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer.”
Astete fails to teach a control unit determining a difference from a setpoint temperature.
Rosario teaches a laminated vehicle glazing, comprising a control unit (heating control unit 14) configured to: control a measurement of the temperature of the layer by the device for measuring the temperature (temperature sensor 16), transmit the information of the temperature to the controller, determine a value representative of a difference between the temperature of the layer and a setpoint temperature (prespecified limit value), control the determination of control information from the value representative of the difference, and transmit the control information to the device for conditioning the temperature (heating resistor layer 11) (see abstract and paragraph beginning “In an advantageous embodiment...”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify Astete in view of Rosario in further view of Mercier to incorporate a control unit, as taught by Rosario, in order to enable automated regulation of the temperature of the glazing relative to a target value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1, 3 – 4, 6 – 7, 13 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record is Astete, Rosario and Mercier. Astete teaches a laminated glazing having two glass sheets, a soundproofing layer made of a visco-elastic material, and a resistive heating circuit. Rosario teaches a temperature sensor within a laminated vehicle glazing and a heating control unit that supplies heating current when the measured temperature fails below a prespecified limit value. Mercier teaches an acoustic PVB interlayer having a loss factor greater than 0.8 at frequencies of between 500 Hz and 5000 Hz at a temperature of 20°C, and a critical frequency of the laminated glazing located in the range of 2000 Hz to 5000 Hz.
However, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest “a controller configured to receive, from the device for measuring the temperature of the soundproofing layer, information of the measured temperature of the soundproofing layer, and to control the device for conditioning the temperature of the soundproofing layer, based on the measured temperature, so as to reduce a difference between the maximal loss frequency fn of the visco-elastic material and the critical frequency fe of the laminated glazing,” in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim. None of the references relates the temperature of the soundproofing layer to the maximal loss frequency of the visco-elastic material or controls that temperature to bring the maximal loss frequency toward the critical frequency of the laminated glazing.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest “determining a value representative of a difference between the temperature of the soundproofing layer and a setpoint temperature, determining control information by the controller from the value representative of the difference,” “wherein the setpoint temperature is a predetermined optimal acoustic temperature,” in combination or with the remaining limitations of the claim. Rosario determines a difference between a measured temperature and a prespecified limit value, but that limit value is selected for operation of the functional element and is not a temperature determined from the acoustic properties of a soundproofing layer. Astete and Mercier do not teach a setpoint temperature.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/NATALIE HULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights