DETAILED ACTION
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 7 and 8 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 7 recites the limitation "the other region" in the third line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the other region" in fourth line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-6, 10, 12, 14, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cleary et al. (WO 2019/245819).
Cleary discloses a glass laminate construction with controlled breakage. Concerning claims 1 and 2, Cleary discloses the glass laminate comprises an outer glass sheet having an outer and inner surface, an inner glass sheet having an outer surface and inner surface, and an interlayer disposed between the glass sheets resulting in the inner surfaces facing each other with the interlayer therebetween, wherein at least one of the inner and outer glass sheets has a plurality of fracture initiation points in a predetermined patterned designed to weaken the glass laminate in the event of an external impact (abstract; para. 0049-0054, 0063-0064, and 0086-0096). Given that the fracture initiation points intrinsically reduce the fracture stress by weakening the area, this partial region where the predetermined pattern is disposed would intrinsically be less than the fracture stress than the areas that do not contain the fracture initiation points and said fracture initiation points are the easily breaking means as claimed. With respect to claims 3 and 4, the fracture initiation points can be formed on surface 1 which is the outer glass sheet can have the fracture initiation points and include embodiments that inner glass sheet does not contain the fracture initiation points given that “one or more of surfaces 1-4” includes the embodiment as claimed (para. 0043 and 0049).
In regards to claims 5 and 6, the limitations are not given patentable weight since the preamble states “The windshield” and the limitations of the engine hood and cowl louver do not provide structure to windshield. Nevertheless, the fracture initiation points would face a cowl louver and/or engine hood because a windshield is generally behind the elements as claimed. Concerning claims 10 and 14, the fracture initiation points are formed by a laser and are in pits which are equivalent to the claimed striking member (FIGS. 4 and 5; para. 0064). With respect to claim 12, the fracture initiation points are formed on the surfaces and as such, would have a surface roughness that is greater than areas that do not contain fracture initiation points (para. 0064). Regarding claims 18 and 19, the inner glass sheet has a thickness of 0.7 to 2 mm (para. 0015) and outer glass sheet has a thickness of 1.5 mm (para. 0095).
With respect to claims 20 and 21, the terms “inner” and “outer” are recited in terms of inside and outside a vehicle and also can be reversed in order with respect to the glass sheets (para. 0063); as such, the inner sheet can be considered the outer sheet and vice versa and therefore, the disclosure of the inner sheet can face the interior of a vehicle or the exterior of a vehicle and the laminate as set forth by Clearly would meet the limitations of claims 20 and 21, given the above disclosure.
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 7-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (WO 2019/245819) in view of Ota (US 20170241195).
Clearly discloses the above but is silent to a shielding layer as claimed.
Ota discloses a windshield laminate comprising a light shielding film disposed on a light shielding region and a light transmitting region. With respect to the light shielding layer as claimed, Ota discloses an embodiment disposing a black light shielding layer and a light shielding layer disposed in an adjacent area, wherein the thickness of the black light shielding layer is greater than or equal to the thickness of the light shielding layer, which allows for improved protection of the light shielding layer (para. 0063-0071). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the thickness relationship as claimed, in order to prevent peeling of the light shielding layer. With respect to the positioning of the black light shielding layer and light shielding layer on which surface(s) of the glass sheets in the laminate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the claimed positioning based on the desired texture aesthetic desired.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (WO 2019/245819).
With respect the fracture stress of the region having the fracture initiation points, since the processing and materials are the same, the region would at a minimum include and encompass the claimed value.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cleary et al. (WO 2019/245819) in view of Alder et al. (US 20160354996).
Cleary discloses the above but is silent to the interlayer not being disposed between the first and second glass sheets at a place corresponding to the partial region.
Alder discloses a glass laminate wherein holes are placed in the glass sheets allowing for dampening the explosive release of internal residual stresses in the event of breakage, wherein the interlayer is trimmed at the holes for minimal visibility (para. 0146, 0150, and 0154). As such, for minimal visibility of the interlayer at the areas where there are fracture initiation points, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to not provide an interlayer section.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Telega (WO 2021/180956) discloses a laminated glazing with holes in the glazing materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASHANT J KHATRI whose telephone number is (571)270-3470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6:30PM.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
PRASHANT J. KHATRI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1783
/PRASHANT J KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783