Detailed Action
The following is a final rejection made in response to amendments and remarks received on November 24th 2025. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s Amendments/Remarks
The Examiner has reviewed the Applicant’s amendments and remarks made in response to the non-final rejection dated July 22nd 2025. The prior art rejection previously applied was a 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection under US Pub. No. 2011/0308381 (“SBGC”). While the anticipation rejection is withdrawn, the SBGC reference continues to render the claims unpatentable under 35 USC 103.
In the remarks, Applicant traverses several points of the rejection. Many have been maintained by the Examiner and at least one has been addressed in the new grounds for rejection set forth in the later sections of this action. The Examiner’s response to the Applicant’s arguments are as follows:
“SBGC does not include a hollow space between any of the at least two transparent panes from the first side to the second side.” (Remarks; p. 8)
The Examiner originally asserted that the “at least two transparent panes” limitation was taught by transparent panels 23, 24, and/or 25. Looking at Fig. 1a, the transparent panels are positioned adjacent to each other, whereby only an interlayer 30 separates the layers. There is no hollow space. The Applicant argues that “to anticipate, SBGC would need to disclose a ballistic block as a unit that itself has no hollow space between its panes from its first side to its second side.” (Remarks; p. 8) The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim (emphasis by Examiner) is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference (see MPEP 2131). The claims have been interpreted using a broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and are considered to be broad enough to be taught by the teachings of SBGC.
Furthermore, MPEP 2111.01 states that “the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification” and further adds that “it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification.”1 Based on the broad language relied upon in defining the claim limitation, the SBGC reference is considered to anticipate this feature in the manner presented by the Examiner.
“SBGC does not disclose or teach the limitation ‘wherein the interlayer is at least partly composed of an ionoplast polymer’ as recited in amended Claim 1.” (Remarks; p.8)
This particular feature was previously presented in dependent claim 3 and was properly rejected in the non-final rejection. As the Applicant is already aware, paragraph [0033] of SBGC teaches a plurality of different alternative interlayer materials, which includes an ionoplast polymer (i.e. Sentryglas ionoplast). This clearly meets the requirement of this limitation and the Applicant’s arguments do not dispute this fact.
“SBGC does not disclose or teach the limitation ‘wherein the at least two transparent panes are each made of heat strengthened glass having a flexural strength of 70 N/mm2 to 120 N/mm2’ as recited in amended Claim 1.” (Remarks; p. 8)
The Applicant correctly asserts that SBGC teaches that the transparent panels may be tempered and/or heat-strengthened glass, but argues that SBGC does not disclose any quantitative flexural strength for its panes, let alone the specific 70 to 120 N/mm2 required for each of the panes in the claimed block. SBGC lacks any mechanical property teaching tied to heath-strengthened glass within this range.” (Remarks, p. 9). This issue has been addressed in the revised 35 USC 103 rejection below.
“SBGC does not disclose, teach, or suggest the limitation ‘wherein the ballistic block does not include any polycarbonate.’” (Remarks; p. 9)
The Applicant correctly asserts that SBGC teaches that polycarbonate is one of a plurality of different materials that may (i.e. not must) be used as the transparent panels. While the armor system of SBGC is compatible with a polycarbonate panel, in no way does the reference actually require polycarbonate to be essential and/or exclusively relied upon as a material for transparent panels. The reference goes to great lengths in teaching a litany of alternatives to demonstrate this point. The Examiner maintains that the teachings of SBGC meet this broad limitation.
For at least these reasons, the Examiner maintains that the claims remain in unpatentable form. A revised rejection, necessitated by the Applicant’s amendments, is being provided in this final action on the merits.
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.
The claims cited in this section are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2011/0308381 (hereinafter referred to as “STANDARD BENT GLASS CORP”, “SBGC” or simply as “the reference”).
Regarding claim 1, SBGC teaches a ballistic block (taught via layer group A) for a bullet resistant glazing (see Fig. 1A and 1B), wherein the ballistic block comprises
at least two transparent panes (23, 24, 25) joined to one another by an interlayer (30), wherein the interlayer is composed of at least partly or partially from an ionoplast polymer (“A number of interlayers are available commercially such as polyvinyl butyral (PVB), ethylvinylacetate (EVA), polyurethane (PU), and SENTRYGLAS™ ionoplast interlayer.”; para. [0033])
a first side defined by one of the at least two transparent panes (looking at Fig. 1a, the first side may be considered to be the side of layer 23 that faces the stack of layers, i.e. the side facing downward toward the interlayer and layer 24),
a second side opposite the first side wherein the second side is defined by another one of the at least two transparent panes (looking at Fig. 1a, the second side may be considered to be the side of layer 24 that faces away from the stack of layers, i.e. the side facing upward toward the interlayer and layer 23),
wherein the ballistic block does not include a further energy-absorbing layer on the first side and wherein the ballistic block does not include any polycarbonate (see Fig. 1A and/or 1B; layer group A simply includes a group of transparent panes and interlayers positioned in between the layers, nothing is positioned on the first side of layer 23; furthermore, while polycarbonate material is an acceptable option for the panes, it is not requirement and para. [0031] cites a plurality different materials that may be used instead), and
wherein the ballistic block does not include a hollow space or a further layer between any of at least two transparent panes (the reference meets the requirement for at least two transparent panes via layers 23 and 24, there is no ‘hollow space’ or further layer between the first and second sides of these layers beyond the interlayer required by the claim).
While SBGC teaches that the two transparent panes are each made of heat-strengthened glass (para. [0031] teaches that the transparent panels may be made of tempered and/or heat-strengthened glass), SBGC fails to explicitly teach that the glass has a flexural strength that spans into the range of 70-120 N/mm2.
Tempered glass is considered to have an equivalent bending strength of between 120-200 N/mm2 based on its known mechanical properties2. MPEP 2144.05 states that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” and the Examiner considers the differences between the SBGC reference and this limitation to be obvious for similar reasons. Flexural/bending strength of treated glass is a function of the degree to which the glass is heat-treated, so a limitation simply citing a preferred value, or range of values, for that strength is not considered to be a novel advance.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the disclosure that demonstrates the importance and/or criticality of that range. The Applicant’s specification establishes that “toughened glass” is understood as having a flexural strength of at least 70 N/mm2 (p. 8, ll. 4-5) and goes on to state that a flexural strength “on the order of 150 N/mm2 can be achieved with regard to the flexural strength of chemically toughened glass” (p.9, ll. 8-10). There is no discussed as to how or why the flexural strength must be therefore limited to the specific range cited in the claim, i.e. 70-120 N/mm2.
Based on the closeness of the range values, and given the known properties of tempered / heat-strengthened glass, the Examiner considers the limitation requiring a flexural strength to be within 70 – 120 N/mm2 to be an obvious variant of the teachings of SBGC.
Regarding claim 4, SBGC teaches that the interlayer is an SGP film having an overall maximum nominal thickness of 0.9mm (para. [0033] teaches an interlayer in the form of Sentryglas ionoplast and an exemplary thickness set at 0.38mm).
Regarding claim 5, SBGC teaches wherein the at least two transparent panes are combined into one structurally self-supporting unit by the interlayer such that when the ballistic block is installed, the ballistic block is retained on no more than two sides of the ballistic block (layer group A is shown to be retained by two sides as shown in Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 7, SBGC teaches that the ballistic block has a symmetrical and monolithic construction (see Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, SBGC teaches that the ballistic block includes a second side opposite the first side and a thickness measured from the first side to the second side, and wherein the thickness is configured to resist the ballistic fire from a 7.62 x 51 mm full metal jacket/hard core round pursuant to the standards under DIN 1063 (para. [0033] states “For example, and without limitation, in certain embodiments a safety glass laminate would be 3 mm glass/0.38 mm interlayer/3 mm glass, which produces a final product referred to as 6.38 laminated glass. It should be recognized that transparent panels in laminated glass applications can have a huge variety of thicknesses.”).
Regarding claim 9, SBGC teaches that the ballistic block is curved (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 10, SBGC teaches wherein each of the first side and the second side of the ballistic block is configured to act as an outermost attack side of the bullet- resistant glazing and resist ballistic fire pursuant to the standards under DIN 1063 (see Figs. 1C and 1D; Figs. 5A-9B show test diagrams showing the outermost side after being struck by an attacking projectile).
Conclusion
This action is made final. 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 extension fee 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.
While the Examiner is available via telephone to help resolve administrative issues regarding a patent application, Applicants are encouraged to consider utilizing the USPTO’s Inventor Assistance Center for general administrative and/or procedural matters at 800-786-9199. Issues relating to patentability and/or prospective amendments may be more efficiently discussed via email correspondence subsequent to the filing of form PTO/SB/439 (“Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application”) authorizing permission for internet communication. The form is available online and may be submitted for the record along with any other response to this action. In accordance with current USPTO policy, this form must be submitted on the record prior to internet communications being authorized. A written statement by the Applicant authorizing internet communications on the record is not sufficient. In the event that a telephone conversation would be the easiest means of resolving issues related to the subject matter of a pending patent application, the Examiner may be reached by telephone at 303-297-4454. Interviews will not be granted after issuance of a final rejection unless it is to discuss an amendment that either places the application in condition for allowance or simplifies issues for appeal.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Troy Chambers can be reached on 571-272-6874. 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.
/Samir Abdosh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3641
1 This section emphasizes the importance of refraining from implying limitations that are not expressly stated in the claims but may be present elsewhere in the disclosure. "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
2 A separate reference document published by FGD Glass Solutions provides a chart showing several material properties of tempered glass, including bending strength. In the chart, the document indicates that the bending strength ranges between 120-200 N/mm2. After reviewing the Applicant’s specification, the Examiner understands flexural strength and bending-strength as referring to the same stress-resistance property. A copy of the FGD Glass solutions publication is provided with this action.