DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claim(s) 25-34, 37, 39-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lescot (WO2020083928, rejection based on corresponding English document USPub20210381808) or alternatively, in further view of Wu (USPub20090246426).
Regarding claim 25: ‘808 teaches fire-resistant glazing comprising a laminate that can have the sequence shown below (see also par 0078, 0088-0089).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The laminate above includes 7 glass plies and two intumescent fire-resistant layers (1) (see also 0022 designating 1 as intumescent layers) wherein as shown above, each fire-resistant layer (1) is an interlayer for two plies and each outer ply of the laminate provides an exterior surface of the glazing and said plies can be that of soda lime glass (i.e. known in the art as float glass) (0044-0045).
Note that ‘808 does teach that each of the glass plies can be transparent (“clear”) glass (see also 0044-0045), the intumescent fire-resistant layers are that of hydrated alkali silicate (see entire document) which is disclosed as being transparent (0046) but it is additionally noted that given that ‘808 discloses their overall glazing having high transparency (0006), all the layers and plies therein would be expected to be transparent.
Regarding the limitation that each of the outer plies have a thickness greater than that of each inner ply, the following is noted.
Initially, while ‘808 fails to provide any Examples wherein the outer plies have a thickness greater than that of each inner ply and instead, ‘808’s illustrated Examples only appear to show embodiments with the outer exterior plies being thinner than at least one inner ply, note that it been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples or preferred embodiments but instead, what it teaches as a whole. Specifically, note that it has been held by the courts that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) and a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
In the instant case, although ‘808’s Examples and disclosed embodiments may not teach the outer plies having a thickness greater than that of each inner ply, ‘808 as a whole does not appear to place any limits on the specifically thickness relationship between the outer external plies and that of the inner plies but instead, ‘808 only teaches that each ply should have a thickness of 2.5mm-16mm (0038-0039) with total glass ply thickness being 35-150mm (0037, 0043). As such, it would have been well within the skill in the art to make each of ‘808’s plies (both the outer external ones and inner plies) have any thickness within the range of 2.5-16mm as desired as long as the total of the 7 glass plies totals 35-150mm.
Further, note that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, ‘808 does teach the general conditions of the claim and while ‘808 may not explicitly teach the relationship, it would be well within the skill in the art to choose any thickness within ‘808’s disclosed individual ply thickness range and total ply thickness range as desired depending on desired final results.
Even further, note that each of ‘808’s 7 above plies with the taught thickness range of 2.5-16mm and ‘808’s total ply thickness teaching of 35-150mm allows for thickness relationships between the outer plies and inner plies overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). As a nonlimiting example, the two outer plies can be 12mm with each of the 5 inner plies being 3mm providing a total glass ply thickness being 39mm.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue that ‘808’s teaching and ranges is still not enough to render obvious a thickness relationship as claimed, it is additionally noted for the record that as ‘426, from the same field of endeavor of fire resistant glazings comprising a laminate of multiple plies of glass with intervening intumescent layers, suggests that it is well known and desirable to make the outer exterior plies thicker than that of the inner plies (see for instance Examples 2, 4 and 5 in ‘426), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘808 to include their outer exterior plies being made thicker than their inner plies as desired in the production of their fire resistant glazing.
Regarding the limitation that each of the outer plies have a bending stiffness between 1.5-15 times greater than that of at least one inner ply, the following is noted.
Initially, the outer plies of the laminate and at least one inner ply of the laminate can be that of soda lime glass (i.e. known in the art as float glass) which is the same materials used by Applicants’ (see float glass in claim 36). Additionally, each outer ply is 2.5-16mm and each inner ply is 2.5-16mm which overlap the thicknesses used by Applicants (see claims 27 and 28). Given the similarities in material and thickness, one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude the same resulting relationship of stiffness (MPEP 2112).
Additionally, it is noted for the record that Applicants appear to suggest that bending stiffness is based on the material itself (i.e. its Young’s modulus which is the fundamental property for measuring stiffness), the materials thickness (i.e. stiffness of a material increases as thickness increases) and the shape of the material’s edges. As such, it can be reasonably concluded that when comparing two plies, if they are of the same material (i.e. will have the same modulus) and have the same edge shape but only thickness is changing, the thicker of the two will be expected to have greater bending stiffness proportional to the increased thickness.
In the instant case, as discussed above, ‘808’s outer plies and inner ply can both be soda lime (i.e. both will have the same modulus) and as shown above, the edges of each have the same rectangular shape. As each outer ply can be thicker than the inner ply, it would be expected to have a greater stiffness and more specifically, as each outer ply can have a thickness of 12mm with each inner ply having a thickness of 3mm (see above mentioned example that can be obtained with ‘808’s overlapping ranges), the outer plies would be expected to have a stiffness 4 times that of the inner plies.
Regarding claims 26-27 and 30: As discussed above, each outer ply has a thickness of 2.5-16mm overlapping the thickness of claims 26 and 27 overlapping that of claim 30 (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, each having the thickness range above allows for relationships of thickness relationships overlapping that of claim 30. Alternatively, note that as ‘426, from the same field of endeavor of fire resistant glazings comprising a laminate of multiple plies of glass with intervening intumescent layers, suggests that it is well known and desirable to make the outer exterior plies the same thickness (see for instance Examples 2, 4 and 5 in ‘426), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘808 to include their outer exterior plies being the same thickness as desired in the production of their fire resistant glazing.
Regarding claim 28: As discussed above, each inner ply has a thickness of 2.5-16mm overlapping the thickness of claim 28 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 29: ‘808 teaches each intumescent fire-resistant layer (1) can have a thickness of 1.5-3mm (0051).
Regarding claim 31: As shown in ‘808’s Figure above, the glazing comprises two or more inner plies and as discussed, each inner ply has a thickness of 2.5-16mm which allows for relationships of thickness overlapping that of claim 31 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claims 32-34: As discussed above, each intumescent fire-resistant layer (1) can have a thickness of 1.5-3mm (0051) which allows for relationships of thickness overlapping that of claims 32-34 (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 37: The intumescent fire-resistant layers (1) have a water content of 20-45wt% (0056).
Regarding claim 39: As discussed above, the fire-resistant layers (1) are intumescent.
Regarding claim 40 and 41: As discussed above, there are 7 plies, two intumescent fire-resistant layers (1) and there is at least one transparent plastic film (2) of PVB, EVA, PU, ionomer, etc. (see 0009, 0022, 0049, 0060, 0078, 0089) and as shown above, is an interlayer for two plies.
Regarding claim 42: The plastic film (2) has a thickness of greater than 0.3mm and even 0.38 and 0.76mm (0058).
Regarding claims 43 and 44: As shown above, the at least one of the plastics films (2) contacts an outermost ply. As also discussed above, the 7 glass plies total 35-150mm thickness, each of the 4 plastic films can have a thickness of greater than 0.3mm such as 0.28 or 0.76mm and each of the 2 intumescent layers can have a thickness of 1.5-3mm. These ranges provide for glazing total thickness overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lescot (WO2020083928, rejection based on corresponding English document USPub20210381808), or alternatively Lescot and Wu (USPub20090246426), as applied to claim 25 above in view of Cook (USPub20200040570).
Regarding claim 38: While ‘808 may not discuss their intumescent fire-resistant layers (1) including hydrogel, ‘808 does not exclude hydrogel containing fire resistant layers. Instead, they only generally teach making a fire-proof glazing using fire-proof layers made of intumescent alkali metal silicate.
As ‘570, who similarly teaches fire a fire-proof glazing using fire-proof layers such as that made of intumescent alkali metal silicate (see 0312), suggests that fire-proof layers can have hydrogel combined with the alkali metal silicate as desired (see 0312 which discusses “comprise combinations of fire resistant elements (e.g. hydrogel and alkali metal silicate”) wherein the hydrogel produced water when heated conferring heat resistant properties (see 0314), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘808 to include hydrogel in their fire-proof layers to produce water when heated providing additional heat resistant properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Initially, Applicants argue that the cited prior art of Lescot fails to teach the invention as amended wherein “each outer ply has a thickness greater than that of each inner ply” and the “each outer ply provides an exterior surface of the fire-resistant glazing”. Applicants argue that Lescot, in all cases, have outer plies being thinner rather than thicker than each inner ply and points to Lescot’s Figure embodiments to not only support their argument but to assert that Lescot is teaching away from the invention as now claimed.
This is not persuasive. As discussed in the above Office Action, Lescot teaches a fire-resistant glazing comprising a laminate that can have the sequence shown below (see also par 0078, 0088-0089).
PNG
media_image1.png
570
555
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The laminate above includes 7 glass plies and two intumescent fire-resistant layers (1) (see also 0022 designating 1 as intumescent layers) wherein as shown above, each fire-resistant layer (1) is an interlayer for two plies and each outer ply of the laminate provides an exterior surface of the glazing and said plies can be that of soda lime glass (i.e. known in the art as float glass) (0044-0045).
Regarding the limitation that each of the outer plies have a thickness greater than that of each inner ply, the following is noted.
Initially, while ‘808 fails to provide Examples wherein the outer plies have a thickness greater than that of each inner ply and instead, as pointed out by Applicants, ‘808’s illustrated Examples only appear to show embodiments with the outer exterior plies being thinner than at least one inner ply, note that it been held by the courts that a reference is not limited to their Examples or preferred embodiments but instead, what it teaches as a whole. Specifically, note that it has been held by the courts that disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) and a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
In the instant case, although ‘808’s Examples and Figure embodiments may not teach the outer plies having a thickness greater than that of each inner ply, ‘808 as a whole does not appear to place any limits on the specifically thickness relationship between the outer external plies and that of the inner plies but instead, ‘808 only teaches that each ply should have a thickness of 2.5mm-16mm (0038-0039) with total glass ply thickness being 35-150mm (0037, 0043). As such, it would have been well within the skill in the art to make each of ‘808’s plies (both the outer external ones and inner plies) have any thickness within the range of 2.5-16mm as desired as long as the total of the 7 glass plies totals 35-150mm.
Further, note that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, ‘808 does teach the general conditions of the claim and while ‘808 may not explicitly teach the relationship, it would be well within the skill in the art to choose any thickness within ‘808’s disclosed individual ply thickness range and total ply thickness range as desired depending on desired final results.
Even further, note that each of ‘808’s 7 above plies with the taught thickness range of 2.5-16mm and ‘808’s total ply thickness teaching of 35-150mm allows for thickness relationships between the outer plies and inner plies overlapping that claimed (MPEP 2144.05). As a nonlimiting example, the two outer plies can be 12mm with each of the 5 inner plies being 3mm providing a total glass ply thickness being 39mm.
Alternatively, in the instance Applicants argue that ‘808’s teaching and ranges is still not enough to render obvious a thickness relationship as claimed, it is additionally noted for the record that as ‘426, from the same field of endeavor of fire resistant glazings comprising a laminate of multiple plies of glass with intervening intumescent layers, suggests that it is well known and desirable to make the outer exterior plies thicker than that of the inner plies (see for instance Examples 2, 4 and 5 in ‘426), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘808 to include their outer exterior plies being made thicker than their inner plies as desired in the production of their fire resistant glazing.
Note that while Applicants appear to assert unexpected results that inventors have discovered that having thicker outer plies improves fire-resistance performance as illustrates in their data of Tables 1-3 of the present application, the evidence of Table 1-3 is not sufficient to show unexpected results for the invention of claim 25.
Initially, note that the glazings for the data for Tables 1-3 are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
For instance, the glazing of claim 25 is only requiring 3 plies and 2 fire-resistant layers but the glazings used to produce the data of Table 1 are glazings comprising 4 plies and 3 fire-resistant layers (see published par 0092-0097), that to produce Table 2 are glazings comprising 6 panes with 5 fire-resistant layers (see published par 0111-0116) and that to produce Table 3 are glazings having 9 plies with 8 fire-resistant layers (see published par 0119-0126). As such, regardless of whether or not Applicants evidence shows very specific larger glazings providing for certain effects is not sufficient to show that the same effects are produced with a much smaller glazing as presently claimed.
Further, note that the evidence is also not commensurate in scope with the claims because the outer plies being thicker than inner panes embodiment used for Table 1 is that which the outer plies are 1.5 times thicker than the inner panes (see published par 0093), the outer plies being thicker than inner panes embodiment used for Table 2 is that which the outer plies are 1.5 times thicker than the inner panes (see published par 0112) and the outer plies being thicker than inner panes embodiment used for Table 3 is that which the outer plies are 1.5 times thicker than the inner panes (see published par 0120) whereas the present claims are much broader than that as claim 25 only recites “thicker” not “1.5 times thicker”.
Additionally, simply for clarity of record regarding the glazings used to produce the data of Tables 1-3, note that the specification does not make clear what thicknesses the fire-resistant layers were, the materials of the fire-resistant layers, or the thicknesses of the glasses themselves that were used to produce their data. As such, are Applicants attempting to assert that their argued results would occur with any fire-resistant layer thickness, material and with any glass thicknesses or is the data limited to just their glazings with some undisclosed materials and thicknesses? There is simply not enough detail to determine what is truly critical.
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 LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3474. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9AM to 5PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
LAUREN ROBINSON COLGAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/LAUREN R COLGAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights