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 .
Response to Amendment
This is a response to the amendment filed 4/23/2026. Claims 1, 13, 15, 16, and 21 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection utilizing Colombo (US 2022/0289990).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. (US 2008/0233371) in view of Colombo et al. (US 2022/0289990).
Regarding Claims 1, 7 and 8, Hayes et al. teaches a method of making a laminated glazing comprising at least two glass sheets via an adhesive interlayer (See Abstract and page 1, paragraph [0003]), the method comprising:
printing an inside of a glass glazing and subsequently laminating the printed side via an interlayer to another glass glazing (See Abstract and page 3, paragraph [0049], teaching the rigid sheets, which may be glass, are printed and then laminated via a interlayer). Hayes et al. further teaches digital printing on the glazing (See page 6, paragraph [0083], teaching applying a digital image to a printer, i.e. digital printing), a viscosity between 1 and 12 centipoise (cps) (See page 6, paragraph [0082], and note 1 cps = 1 mPa*s), pigment particles, in the claimed range (See page 5, paragraphs [0068]-[0069], wherein the pigments, which are light scattering particles, are present from 0.01-10 wt % in the ink, almost entirely overlapping the claimed range and thus rendering it obvious), and UV curing the ink/resin (See page 5, paragraph [0077] and page 6, paragraph [0084], teaching the ink is UV curable and is UV cured via a UV curing lamp, i.e. illumination with UV light as claimed).
Hayes et al. does not specifically teach pigment selections that maintain transparency after printing, instead generally relying on conventional pigment inks for forming visible images. However, Hayes et al. broadly teaches UV-curable and pigment-based inks for printing decorative images on glass substrates used in safety glass laminates, and does not limit the pigments to light-absorbing or opaque materials.
Colombo et al. teaches a process of using digital printing for known transparent UV-based inks (See page 2, paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and page 3, paragraph [0051]), such as in Hayes et al., to print glass including car glasses (e.g. automotive safety glass as in Hayes et al.) (See page 2, paragraph [0031]). Colombo et al. teaches that, in UV-based and other transparent ink systems, inorganic oxide particles such as TiO₂, ZnO, and ZrO₂ having particle sizes on the order of 100-500 nm, i.e. 0.1-0.5 microns, and at loadings below about 5% by weight in the ink can be dispersed to produce coatings that remain optically transparent while providing light-scattering, decorative optical effects due to their high refractive index and low visible absorption (See page 2, paragraphs [0031]-[0037]). Given that Hayes et al. already teaches printing UV-curable inks on glass for decorative purposes, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute the pigment particles of Hayes et al. with the inorganic oxide particles taught by Colombo et al. in order to achieve alternative decorative optical effects, such as light-diffusing or translucent appearances, while maintaining transparency of the glass.
Such substitution would have been a predictable use of known materials according to their established optical properties (i.e., refractive index–driven light scattering), and would not have required modification of the printing or lamination process taught by Hayes et al. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include particles such as in Colombo et al. as the decorative particles in the UV-curable ink of Hayes et al. Incorporating the particle types and loadings of Colombo et al. into the ink systems of Hayes et al. would have predictably resulted in a printed glass article exhibiting transparent, light-scattering decorative effects suitable for use in automotive glass applications that are induced via light.
Regarding Claim 2, Hayes et al. teaches standard interlayers such as PVB and EVA (See page 1, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding Claim 4-5, Hayes et al. teaches the ink is solvent based (See page 2, paragraph [0025]; note Colombo et al. also teach solvent based UV inks, see page 2, paragraph [0027]) and includes thermoplastic binders, including polyurethane, at over 0.6% by weight (See page 5, paragraphs [0074] and [0076], teaching the ink includes binder and the example of binders would have been understood to be thermoplastics such as polyester polyimides, PVP/VA, PVP, etc., thus suggesting the polyurethane binder is, or at least could have been, thermoplastic polyurethane, since thermoplastics are clearly preferred for the binders based on the disclosed polymer list).
Regarding Claim 9, neither Colombo et al. nor Hayes et al. make explicit mention of luminescent particles except to reference fluorescents as being optional, thus indicating none may be included (See Hayes et al., page 4, paragraph [0055]; and Colombo et al. page 3, paragraphs [0041]-[0042]). Examiner submits Claim 9 does not require any luminescent particles be present but only sets an upper limit on their inclusion.
Regarding Claim 10, Hayes et al. teaches the UV-curable resin in the ink includes acrylate monomers and their mixtures (See page 5-6, paragraph [0077]).
Regarding Claim 19, Examiner submits “low solar energy transmission” is not specific and must be interpreted extremely broadly or else be indefinite. Examiner submits anything reflecting solar energy, such as is inevitable in a glass laminate, will reduce solar transmission and this can be said to create “low solar energy transmission” since “low” is a relative term. Further, Examiner takes official notices than reducing solar transmission is a standard goal in automotive glass.
Claim(s) 3, 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Kapp et al. (US 2006/0191625).
Regarding Claims 3 and 13, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Hayes et al. is silent about rheology modifiers, but these are well-known adiditives to control the viscosity of similar inks as needed for in jet printing glass after bending to a curved shape and prior to forming glass laminates (See, for example, Kapp et al. Abstract, page 1, paragraph [0006], page4, paragraph [0034], and page 5, Table 1, indicating ink jetting an ink of a curved glass after bending for forming a glass laminated wherein the pigment package ink includes rheology modifiers to control viscosity, such as at 1.1%). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize rheology modifiers, such as at 1.1%, in Hayes et al. Doing so is known to be suitable for similar ink system and would have predictably allowed viscosity control as is needed for ink jetting. It further would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize curved glass in Hayes et al. Printing on such glass is well-known in the prior art as evidenced by Kapp et al. and such glass is ideal for glass laminates in automotive applications such as windshields.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Grover et al. (US 3,973,058) and Phillips et al. (US 5,487,939).
Regarding Claim 6, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above. Hayes et al. fails to teach plasticizers. However, plasticizers are well-known in similar printing inks and binders, such as at 0-30% by weight, in order to control viscosity (See, for example, Grover et al., col. 3, line 67 to col. 4, line 2, teaching plasticizers as a viscosity control agent in ink to be printed on glass; and Phillips et al. col. 5, lines 11-24, teaching plasticizers in inks and binder to be included on glass are typically included at 0-30% by weight). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to include plasticizer in the thermoplastic binder in known ranges, such as at 5% by weight thereof. Doing so would have predictably helped control the viscosity of the binder and the ink in order to curate viscosity as required in Hayes et al. (See Hayes et al. page 5, paragraph [0074], teaching additives to adapt viscosity may be including in the inks).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Klafka et al. (US 6,451,435)
Regarding Claim 11, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as discussed above, but is silent as to a surface roughness for the PVB adhesive interlayer. It would have been apparent know suitable roughnesses for such a layer in glass laminating would have predictably been suitable. PVB interlayers used in glass bonding are known to suitably have an Rz roughness of 24.7 (See, for example, Klafka, col. 6, lines 29-32). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize the interlayer PBV as in Hayes et al. with a surface roughness of 24.7. Doing so would have predictably provided an available and suitable roughness for PVB that is the interlayer lamination process.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ishii et al. (US 6,235,140)
Regarding Claim 12, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as described above. Hayes et al. further teaches ink jet printing, which is implicitly one of either single or multiple pass to print over a surface (See page 4, paragraph [0055]). Hayes teaches printing the glass against which the interlayer is pressed, thus putting the print directly between the glass and interlayer, but fails to teach printing the interlayer directly. However, known locations for initially disposing the decorative ink between the interlayer and glass would have predictably been suitable when carrying out the method of Hayes et al. Further, it is known in the prior art that decorative ink may be applied to end up in a similar location, i.e. between the interlayer and glass, by printing the interlayer, as opposed to the glass (See, for example, Ishii et al., Abstract, teaching printing a glass interlayer directly to provide decorative printing to the interior side of a glass laminate). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time to print the interlayer instead of the glass in Hayes et al. to dispose the ink. Doing so would have predictably been an alternative method of disposing decorative ink between the glass and interlayer to achieve a functionally equivalent product.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Ito et al. (US 2018/0339546).
Regarding Claims 13-16, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as described above, but is silent as to the multi-axis printing robot for printing curved glass with an ink jet. However, such printing of curved glass is known to adjust the ink jet printhead relative to the curved glass, using the robot to adjust the glass to a fixed print head (See Ito et al., page 11, paragraphs [0180]-[0185] and Fig. 11, wherein multi-axis robot [101] moves glass relative to a fixed printhead [100]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use a robot to move the glass relative to a fixed printhead. Doing so would have predictably enabled printing along the curved contour as is required when forming curved laminates, such as for windshields. Note moving an inkjet printhead over a surface is also standard and well-known. It would have been apparent the relative movement is the critical element for inkjet printing on a curved surface. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention that multi-axis robots could have been mounted on either or both or the head and glass to provide printing. Adding freedom of movement to parts is well-known to add more flexibility and precision to robotically implemented processes. Further, as is well-known in the art, when x-y-z movement of parts is needed, one part can do all the movement or the freedom can be distributed. Ito et al. teaches a robot with 6 axes of movement moving relative to a stationary printhead (See page 11, paragraph [0180]), but it would have been apparent, and certainly obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, an arm with four axes of movement and a printhead with two axes of movement would have accomplish similar required relative movement. Thus, Examiner submits once 6-degrees of freedom is taught as desirable between two parts, Examiner submits anyway of distributing that relative movement between the parts is obvious when there is no reason one part must remain fixed to carry out the relative movement.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Doeppner et al. (US 2007/0154705).
Regarding Claims 17-18, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Hayes et al. is silent on an LED light and light guide. However, such devices are well-known to be included in glass laminates (See, for example, Doeppner et al., page 6, paragraphs [0069]-[0072], teaching a light guide coupled to an LED in element [12] of Fig. 12 that is inserted between glass in a glass laminate in Fig. 13). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate a light guide and LED as claimed. Doing so was known to have been a suitable means for illuminating the glass laminate. Examiner notes since no luminescent particles are actually required, no specific wavelength of excitation is required and thus the LED could be any wavelength where particles could have been excited, i.e. at any wavelength where any existing luminescent particles could have been excited. Examiner submits the visible range of an LED, which is white light and emits over many different wavelength, clearly meets this limitation.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Braun et al. (US 5,589,272).
Regarding Claim 20, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teaches the method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Examiner submits the “electrochromic system” alone is an alternative that satisfies claim 20. Such systems are well-known as functional films in glass laminates to provide desired functionality, such as controllable light transmission (See, for example, Braun et al., col. 2, lines 8-15, reciting electrochromic systems as known functional films in glass laminates). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize electrochromic systems. Such systems are well-known to be suitable in glass laminates to actively control light transmission through the glass.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. as applied to Claim 1, and further in view of Barton et al. (US 2006/0182980).
Regarding Claim 21, Hayes et al. and Colombo et al. teach the method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Hayes et al. fails to teach tinting one glass sheet. However, tinting only the outer glass in a laminate is known to allow higher light transmission while barely compromising solar performance (See, for example, Barton et al. page 7, paragraph [0073]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to tint only the outer layer. Doing so would have predictably allowed higher light transmission while not significantly compromising solar performance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT W DODDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 5712705038. 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.
/SCOTT W DODDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights