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 .
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krell (US 2014/0255704) in view of Jungkuist et al (US 2011/0072961).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 8, and 9 Krell teaches a transparent composite panes (laminated sheets) for safety (security) applications (Krell para 1) comprising one or more monocrystalline magnesium aluminate spinel layers, a laminated glass layer, and a polymer (plastic) layer (Krell para 33-36) (reads on both first block (A) and second block (B)), which provides for a high individual laminate protective effect, high transparency, and high quality (Krell para 12, 14, 18, 28).
Krell is silent to the transparent laminated composite panes being utilized in a compartmentalized construction which comprises a first ‘block’ (pane) separated from a second block (pane) by a gas-filled compartment.
Krell and Jungkuist are related in the field of transparent panes for protective applications. Jungkuist teaches a pair of transparent laminates which may be glass or other transparent materials (Jungkuist para 27) spaced apart to form an air gap between (Jungkuist para 28) to form spaced transparent armor (Junkuist para 1-4). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the transparent composite panes of Krell as both of the transparent laminates (and thus Block A and Block B) in the spaced armor of Junkuist because the laminate of Krell provides the benefits of high transparency, high quality, and high protective effect for the transparent laminate layers.
Regarding claim 3, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 1. Krell further teaches that the transparent ceramic may be a single plate or a series of plates arranged as a mosaic (Krell para 31, 34, 37, 38).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 3. Krell further teaches that the ceramic series of plates may be joined by an adhesion promoting joining means that matches the refractive index of the transparent ceramic (Krell para 22, 36, 37).
Regarding claim 5, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 1. Krell teaches that the transparent ceramic layer does not show any coloration issues until >10 mm thickness (Krell para 42) and provides examples of thickness 4.4 mm (Krell para 51), providing a functional range of about 4.4 mm to about 10 mm. This overlaps with the claimed range of 5-15 mm. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the thickness taught by Krell in view of Junkist overlaps with the instantly claimed thickness and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 1. As both Block A and Block B would be the same, one or both blocks would have the ceramic directly or indirectly contacting the gas-filled region.
Regarding claim 7, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 1. Krell further teaches the layers may be joined by an adhesion promoting means (Krell para 22).
Regarding claim 10, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 1. Krell teaches that it may be used in panes or windows in the civilian and military sectors (Krell para 28).
Regarding claim 11, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet as above for claim 10. Krell further teaches the use in vehicles, flying objects and/or personal protection (Krell para 29).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Krell in view of Junkuist teaches a transparent laminated sheet used in protection applications as above for claim 10. It would be expected for the same materials with the claimed two-pane and gap structure, at the same thickness (such as that provided within Krell, see claim 5) to provide the same function of protecting from a projectile with a tungsten carbide core.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA B FIGG whose telephone number is (571)272-9882. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9a-6p Mountain.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/LAURA B FIGG/Examiner, Art Unit 1781 3/25/26
