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 .
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 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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nohara (US 2021/0078303).
Regarding claim 1, Nohara teaches a windshield (Fig. 1a-1b, [0211, 0001-0269]) having an optical path (Fig. 1a-1b, [0211, 0052]), comprising:
a. an inner rigid substrate (the second lamination glass member 5 in Fig. 1a, [0025, 0052], the second lamination glass member is situated on a side of the interior space), optically adjacent a first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]), that serves to reflect a primary image ([0211, 0251, 0025, 0052], the image emitted from a display unit instated below the laminated glass which is the windshield of the car, and then reflected by the inner second lamination glass member 5 in Fig. 1a);
b. a reflective layer (the infrared reflective layer 3 in Fig. 1a, [0052]), positioned in the optical path between the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) and a second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]); and
c. an outer rigid substrate (the first lamination glass member 1 in Fig. 1a, [0025, 0052], the first lamination glass member is situated on a side of the exterior space), optically adjacent the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]),
wherein the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) causes visible light reflected from the reflective layer (the infrared reflective layer 3 in Fig. 1a, [0052]) to overlap the primary image (Fig. 1a, [0251-0252], Table 1-2, for Examples 1 and 5 in Table 1-2, completely no multiple images are observed and both of the image of the thick line part and the image of the thin line part are clearly displayed; therefore, the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a needs to cause visible light reflected from the infrared reflective layer 3 to overlap the primary image, otherwise multiple images will be observed and examples 1 and 5 couldn’t realize that completely no multiple images are observed); and
wherein the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) causes visible light reflected from an outer face of the outer rigid substrate (the first lamination glass member 1 in Fig. 1a, [0025, 0052], the first lamination glass member is situated on a side of the exterior space) to overlap the primary image (Fig. 1a, [0251-0252], Table 1-2, for Examples 1 and 5 in Table 1-2, completely no multiple images are observed and both of the image of the thick line part and the image of the thin line part are clearly displayed; therefore, the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a needs to cause visible light reflected from an outer face of the first lamination glass member 1, otherwise multiple images will be observed and examples 1 and 5 couldn’t realize that completely no multiple images are observed).
Regarding claims 4-6 and 16, Nohara also teaches the following elements:
(Claim 4) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) has an absolute wedge angle variation from target that is less than 0.1 mrad and the 50 mm rate of change of the wedge angle is less than 4 μrad per millimeter ([0057], since Nohara teaches that the first resin layer 2 has a wedge angle of 0.1 mrad, and the second resin layer 4 has a wedge angle of 0.1 mrad, Nohara teaches that an absolute wedge angle variation or a rate of change of the wedge angle is zero).
(Claim 5) the reflective layer (the infrared reflective layer 3 in Fig. 1a, [0052]) selectively reflects infrared light ([0089]).
(Claim 6) the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) comprise poly(vinyl acetal) ([0019, 0102-0106]).
(Claim 16) the reflective layer comprises a metallized film ([0090-0091]).
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara (US 2021/0078303).
Regarding claim 9, Nohara teaches that the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) comprise poly(vinyl acetal) ([0019, 0102-0106]), have the same wedge angle (Fig. 1, [0057]) and have the substantially same thickness (Fig. 1). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to try and recognize that in the system of Nohara, the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer have the same thickness. The motivation is to provide laminated glass capable of suppressing multiple images, and satisfactorily displaying an image (Nohara, [0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Nohara teaches that the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) have the same wedge angle (Fig. 1, [0057]) and are positioned as substantially mirror images of one another (Fig. 1). Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to try and recognize that in the system of Nohara, the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer are positioned as mirror images of one another. The motivation is to provide laminated glass capable of suppressing multiple images, and satisfactorily displaying an image (Nohara, [0013]).
Claims 2, 7-8, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Oota (US 2020/0391484).
Regarding claims 2, Nohara teaches that visible light reflected from the reflective layer (the infrared reflective layer 3 in Fig. 1a, [0052]) and the visible light reflected from an outer face of the outer rigid substrate (the first lamination glass member 1 in Fig. 1a, [0025, 0052], the first lamination glass member is situated on a side of the exterior space) each overlap the primary image with an image separation distance being very small to realize that completely no multiple images are observed (Fig. 1a, [0251-0252], Table 1-2, for Examples 1 and 5 in Table 1-2, completely no multiple images are observed).
Oota also teaches that (Fig. 1, [0133-0135, 0311, 0083, 0098]) the visible light reflected from the reflective layer and the visible light reflected from the outer rigid substrate (the second lamination glass member 5 in Fig. 1a) each overlap the primary image reflected from the inner rigid substrate (the first lamination glass member 1 in Fig. 1a) with an image separation distance of less than about 2.5mm (Table1, [0016, 0032, 0064, 0069, 0120]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed range of less than about 1.5 arc-min overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Oota for the system of Nohara to try and recognize that in the system of Nohara, the visible light reflected from the reflective layer and the visible light reflected from the outer face of the outer rigid substrate each overlap the primary image with an image separation distance of less than about 1.5 arc-min. The motivation is to provide a laminated glass having excellent heat shielding property, capable of suppressing multiple images in a head-up display, and providing better image display (Oota, [0013]).
Regarding claims 7-8, 11 and 13-14, Nohara does not teach the following elements.
Oota teaches the following elements (Fig. 1, [0133-0135, 0311, 0083, 0098], the laminated glass is installed so that the arrangement in the order of interior space/first lamination glass member/first resin layer/infrared reflective layer/second resin layer/second lamination glass member/exterior space is achieved):
(Claim 7) the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0098]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0083]) have a thickness from about 0.3 mm to about 2.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed range of from about 0.05 mm to about 1.2 mm overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
(Claim 8) the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0098]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0083]) have a thickness from about 0.3 mm to about 2.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed range of from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
(Claim 11) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0098]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0083]) comprise at least one skin layer and at least one core layer ([0230], since the first resin layer and the second resin layer can be a multilayer of two or more layers, they have at least one skin/outer layer and at least one core/inner layer).
(Claim 13) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0098]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0083]) comprise at least one skin layer and at least one core layer ([0230], since the first resin layer and the second resin layer can be a multilayer of two or more layers, they have at least one skin/outer layer and at least one core/inner layer) and has a thickness from about 0.3 mm to about 2.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed range of from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
(Claim 14) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0098]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1, [0133, 0311, 0083]) does not comprise at least one skin layer and at least one core layer ([0230], since the first resin layer and the second resin layer can be a structure of only one layer, they do not comprise at least one skin layer and at least one core layer), and has a thickness from about 0.3 mm to about 2.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the claimed range of from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm overlaps with the range disclosed by the prior art (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Oota for the system of Nohara to try and recognize that in the system of Nohara,
(Claim 7) the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer have a thickness from about 0.05 mm to about 1.2 mm.
(Claim 8) the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer have a thickness from 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm.
(Claim 11) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer comprise at least one skin layer and at least one core layer.
(Claim 13) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer comprises at least one skin layer and at least one core layer and has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 1.0 mm.
(Claim 14) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer does not comprise at least one skin layer and at least one core layer, and has a thickness from about 0.1 mm to about 1.0 mm.
The motivation is to provide a laminated glass having excellent heat shielding property, capable of suppressing multiple images in a head-up display, and providing better image display (Oota, [0013]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yacovone (US 2006/0188695).
Regarding claim 3, Nohara teaches that at least one of the first wedge polymer layer (the first resin layer 2 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) and the second wedge polymer layer (the second resin layer 4 in Fig. 1a, [0052, 0101-0117]) is an interlayer of the windshield (Fig. 1a-1b, [0211, 0001-0269]). Nohara does not teach the following elements.
Yacovone teaches the following elements (Fig. 1-2, [0036-0037, 0006-0010]):
(Claim 3) an interlayer of a windshield (Fig. 1, [0036-0037, 0006-0010]) has a surface with a waviness index of less than 20,000 square micrometers ([0007]), an Rz value of at least 20 micrometers ([0007]), and a permanence of between 10 and 95 ([0007]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Yacovone for the system of Nohara such that in the system of Nohara,
(Claim 3) at least one of the first wedge polymer layer and the second wedge polymer layer has a surface with a waviness index of less than 20,000 square micrometers, an Rz value of at least 20 micrometers, and a permanence of between 10 and 95.
The motivation is to provide low distortion multiple layer laminated glass panels (Yacovone, [0006]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Lu (US 2016/0159041).
Regarding claim 12, Nohara does not teach the following elements.
Lu teaches the following elements (Fig. 1-2, [0022-0048]):
(Claim 12) one wedge polymer layer(Fig. 1-2, [0045-0048]) comprises: a. at least a first layer comprising a first poly(vinyl acetal) resin ([0036]) having a first residual hydroxyl content ([0036]) and a first residual acetate content ([0036]), and a first plasticizer ([0031-0035]), wherein the first layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) greater than 26° C. ([0047]); and b. a second layer comprising a second poly(vinyl acetal) resin ([0036]) having a second residual hydroxyl content ([0036]), and a second plasticizer ([0031-0035]), wherein the second layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) less than 20° C. *[0047]).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Lu for the system of Nohara to such that in the system of Nohara,
(Claim 12) one of the wedge polymer layers comprises: a. at least a first layer comprising a first poly(vinyl acetal) resin having a first residual hydroxyl content and a first residual acetate content, and a first plasticizer, wherein the first layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) greater than 26° C.; and b. a second layer comprising a second poly(vinyl acetal) resin having a second residual hydroxyl content, and a second plasticizer, wherein the second layer has a glass transition temperature (Tg) less than 20° C.
The motivation is to control or provide certain performance properties, such as strength, impact resistance, penetration resistance, processability, or acoustic performance (Lu, [0042, 0008]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Felske (US 5144459).
Regarding claim 15, Nohara does not teach the following elements.
Felske teaches the following elements (Fig. 1-2, Abs, Col. 3-4):
(Claim 15) a reflective layer (the reflection hologram 6 in Fig. 1-2, Abs, Col. 3, lines 67-68) comprises a holographic optical element (Abs, Col. 3, lines 67-68).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Felske for the system of Nohara such that in the system of Nohara,
(Claim 15) the reflective layer comprises a holographic optical element.
The motivation is to obtain a reflected image of the desired signals and information without aberrations or distortion, even in the case of bent windshields (Felske, Col. 2, Lines 20-25).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nohara as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Weber (US 2004/0135742).
Regarding claims 17-20, Nohara does not teach the following elements.
Weber teaches the following elements (Fig. 2, Abs, [0012, 0031-0037]):
(Claim 17) a reflective layer (the reflective polarizer 20 in Fig. 2, [0033]) comprises a film having alternating layers of a low refractive index material and a high refractive index material deposited thereon (Abs, [0033, 0019-0022, 0057], The reflective polarizer includes a multilayer stack with refractive indices of individual layers; Polarizer 20 preferably comprises a multilayer stack of alternating materials; Polarizer 20 can be fabricated from tens or hundreds of co-extruded polymer layers).
(Claim 18) a reflective layer (the reflective polarizer 20 in Fig. 2, [0033]) polarizes light ([0033]).
(Claim 19) a reflective layer (the reflective polarizer 20 in Fig. 2, [0033]) preferentially reflects a particular polarization of light ([0033]).
(Claim 20) the reflective layer comprises a film having alternating layers of a low refractive index polymer and a high refractive index polymer (Abs, [0033, 0019-0022, 0057], Polarizer 20 preferably comprises a multilayer stack of alternating materials; a first alternating material (e.g. polyethylene terephthalate (PET)) having a relatively high refractive index of 1.68 and a second alternating material (e.g. a copolyester) having a relatively low refractive index of 1.54).
Before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the artisan of ordinary skill to employ the above elements as taught by Weber for the system of Nohara such that in the system of Nohara,
(Claim 17) the reflective layer comprises a film having alternating layers of a low refractive index material and a high refractive index material deposited thereon.
(Claim 18) the reflective layer polarizes light.
(Claim 19) the reflective layer preferentially reflects a particular polarization of light.
(Claim 20) the reflective layer comprises a film having alternating layers of a low refractive index polymer and a high refractive index polymer.
The motivation is to reduce or eliminate multiple or "ghost" images, and reduce cabin heating from solar radiation (Weber, Abs).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-0383. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm EST M-F.
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, Jennifer Carruth can be reached on 571-272-9791. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Shan Liu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871