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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 2, Claims 13-15, 17 and 19-23 in the reply filed on 03/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that International Search Authority did not find a lack of unity. This is not found persuasive because this does not address the arguments of the lack of unity presented in the Restriction Requirement.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group 1, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/18/2026.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 13, 14, 15, 17, 19-23 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.
Regarding Claim 13, the claim switches from “said laminated sheet structure” and “the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure”. This creates an issue of antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, “said laminated sheet structure” is interpreted to “the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure” or “said thermoplastic laminated sheet structure”.
Regarding Claim 14, the claim recites “said laminated sheet structure comprising … a sealing, surrounding the perimeter of the thermoplastic laminated sheet, configured to sealing the thermoplastic sheet structure from a surrounding” It would be uncertain to one with ordinary skill in the art for the seal to surround the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure, when the seal is part of the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure, as the seal would now be unsealed and exposed to the surroundings. For purposes of examination, seal is interpreted to surround the perimeter of the functional layer as shown in Fig. 1.
In addition, the claim switches from “said laminated sheet structure” and “the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure”. This creates an issue of antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, “said laminated sheet structure” is interpreted to “the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure” or “said thermoplastic laminated sheet structure”.
Claim 15, 17 and 19-23 are also rejected, due to their dependency on Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 22, the claim does not recite what “at least one” that stretches. This renders the claim indefinite. For purposes of examination, is interpreted to be the at least one bonding layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klein et al. (WO 2019/025178 A1) [hereinafter translated and referenced via US 2021/0101370 A1].
Regarding Claim 14, Klein teaches a windshield laminate (Paragraph 0001) comprising a first glass sheet (Item 1; Paragraph 0068) and a second glass sheet (Item 2; Paragraph 0068) that are parallel and mutually spaced apart (Fig. 1B) and a thermoplastic laminated sheet structure substantially entirely placed between the first and glass sheet and stretches essentially entirely to the perimeter of the first and second glass sheet. (Fig. 1B, 1C). Klein teaches the thermoplastic sheet structure comprises a functional layer having an upper surface and lower surface (Item 5) and two bonding layers substantially covering the upper and lower surfaces of the functional layer (Item 3a, 3b).
Klein teaches a sealing surrounding the perimeter of the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure configured for sealing the functional layer, where the sealing formed on a portion of the perimeter of the thermoplastic laminated sheet structure formed from the two bonding layers. (Item 3a, 3b).
Regarding Claim 15, Klein teaches the windshield laminate can be curved structure. (Paragraph 0061).
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.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein
Regarding Claim 13, the claim recites multiple product-by-process limitations. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP §2113). Here, the process-by-production limitations recite a product of an automotive window laminate that requires a first glass and a second glass sheet, a thermoplastic laminated sheet structure between the first and second glass sheet, wherein the thermoplastic sheet structure comprises at least one functional layer situated between at least two bonding layers, where the bonding layers are adhered to the first and second glass sheet and seal the functional layer.
Klein teaches an automotive window laminate that requires a first glass and a second glass sheet, a thermoplastic laminated sheet structure between the first and second glass sheet, wherein the thermoplastic sheet structure comprises at least one functional layer situated between at least two bonding layers, where the bonding layers are adhered to the first and second glass sheet and seal the functional layer. (Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 17, Klein teaches the functional layer comprises at least two thermoplastic layers, carrier films (Items 14 and 15; Paragraph 0042), and at least one film layer, electrode layer, (Item 12 or 13) between the two thermoplastic layers (Fig. 1C; Paragraph 0108) Klein teaches the at least one film layer, electrode layer, 10 nm to 2 microns. (Paragraph 0039) and the thermoplastic film layer can have a thickness of 0.1 to 1 mm in thickness. (Paragraph 0042). This overlaps the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Chen et al. (US 2017/0136754 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Klein does not specifically teach the bonding layer is EVA or TPU. Klein does teach the bonding layer can be polyvinyl butyral PVB (Paragraph 0033).
Chen teaches a bonding layer composition for windshields, where the bonding layer composition is EVA based. (Abstract; Paragraph 0070; Claim 1 of Chen). Chen teaches the EVA-based composition provides the advantage of lower haze, higher light transmission and better adhesion while improving production time over conventional PVB interlayer compositions. (Paragraph 0003-0009, 0069-0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the EVA-composition as the bonding layer over PVB in Klein for the improved properties and faster production.
Regarding Claim 20, the limitations regarding the layers being pre-bonded is a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP §2113). Here, the use of pre-bonding does not change the resulting product structure, bonded layers on the functional layer.
Klein teaches two bonding layers form an integral encapsulation that essentially encapsulates the entire functional layer with a gas-tight seal. (Paragraph 0067; Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 21, the limitations regarding the layers being pre-bonded is a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. (See MPEP §2113). Here, the use of pre-bonding does not change the resulting product structure, bonded layers on the functional layer.
Chen teaches the EVA composition includes a cross-linker (Claim 1 of Chen) that cross-links the bonding layer composition. (Table 2). As discussed above, Chen teaches the cross-linked EVA-based composition provides the advantage of lower haze, higher light transmission and better adhesion while improving production time over conventional PVB interlayer compositions. (Paragraph 0003-0009, 0069-0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the cross-linked EVA-composition as the bonding layer in Klein for the improved properties and faster production.
Regarding Claim 22, Klein teaches a barrier material is placed on edge of the functional layer. (Fig. 1C, Item 4). Klein teaches thickness of this barrier material is at least 0.1 mm in thickness. (Paragraph 0022). Therefore, the bonding layer that goes around the side of the functional layer and over the barrier material at that portion stretches at least 0.1 mm beyond the perimeter of the functional layer. This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein in view of Boote et al. (US 2012/0176656 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Klein does not specifically teach the moisture content of the bonding layers. Klein does teach the functional layer can be a suspended particle device (Paragraph 0045).
Boote teaches a laminated glazing/windscreen (Paragraph 0044) with a SPD within the laminated glazing. (Claim 1 of Boote; Abstract). Boote teaches the bonding interlayers have a moisture content of lower than 0.26 wt%. (Paragraph 00014-0018). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Boote teaches this moisture content range higher than will degraded the SPD faster. (Paragraph 0014). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to set the moisture content of the bonding layers in Klein to the claimed range to reduce the degradation of the functional element, SPD, in Klein.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights