DETAILED ACTION
In response to Amendments/Arguments filed 8/12/2026. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 6 were amended. Claim 2 was cancelled.
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 16-18 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.
Claims 7 and 16-18 are dependent upon a cancelled claim. Examiner assumes that claim 7 is dependent upon claim 1. However, it is noted that if claims 16-18 are dependent upon claim 1, the claims are duplicates of claims 8-10. In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner will consider them dependent upon claim 1, however, appropriate treatment of those claims by the Applicant is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-8, 12, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murata (JP 2020-097506).
Murata discloses a glass that does not crack. Concerning claims 1, 3-6, 8, 16, and 19, Murata discloses a glass sheet having a composition comprising 71.3 mol% SiO2, 11.9 mol% B2O3, 11.9 mol% Al2O3, 2.5 mol% MgO, and 2.5 mol% Na2O, resulting in a total amount of SiO2, B2O3, and Al2O3 of 95.1 mol% and a total of R2O and RO, wherein R is Li, Na, K, Mg, Ca, Sr, and Ba of 5 mol%, which meets the instant limitations (Table 1, Example 3). Given that the composition is the same as that claimed, the glass sheet of Murata would exhibit the claimed properties and CTE. Regarding claim 7, since the composition of Example 3 in Table 1 does not contain any iron, the limitations of claim 7 are met. Concerning claim 12, the glass sheet is used as part of a window glass, windshield, and the like (para. 0088).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (JP 2020-097506).
Murata discloses the glass composition is used to form sheets and other articles for a variety of different applications (para. 0088). Given that the different applications as disclosed by Murata would require different thicknesses for the glass sheet or article, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to produce a sheet or article having any thickness, including the claimed thickness for the desired application design requirements.
Claims 9, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (JP 2020-097506) in view of Bhatia et al. (WO 2020/106486).
Murata discloses the above, including the glass sheet is used in producing window glass, and cover glass which is an exterior facing glass (para. 0088). However, Murata is silent to the claimed infrared reflection coating.
Bhatia discloses an automotive window laminate formed from glass ceramic sheets having similar compositions and an interlayer therebetween. With respect to claims 9, 17, and 20, an IR reflecting film can be disposed on or above the glass ceramic sheets as claimed (FIGS. 3-5; para. 0071-0076). The structure as shown by Bhatia allows for reducing IR/NIR transmittance by tuning the transmittance profile (para. 0071). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply an IR reflecting coating to the glass sheet of Murata.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murata (JP 2020-097506) in view of Stiles Basic Glass Guide (Hereafter “Stiles Guide”).
Murata discloses the glass sheet is used in producing window glass, and cover glass which is an exterior facing glass (para. 0088). However, Murata is silent to the claimed laminate.
The Stiles Guide discloses a laminate glass comprising two sheets of glass with an interlayer therebetween, wherein forming the laminate of two sheets, one of which can be a glass sheet as disclosed by Murata and a second glass sheet with an interlayer allows for producing a safety glass for vehicles such as windshields and windows that stay intact after impact (p. 6). As such, for safety purposes, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an interlayer and second glass sheet to form a glass laminate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 7-8, filed 8/12/2026, with respect to the art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 102(a)(1) and 103 rejections of the claims under Bressler, Kiczenski, Bhatia have been withdrawn. However, Bhatia is still applicable as shown above as a secondary reference.
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 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 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
