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 .
Examiner’s Comment
In view of Applicants’ Affidavit filed August 21, 2026, WO2021122848 (USPub20230043367) has been removed as prior art. However, upon updating a search, CN205899054 is now being applied as prior art rendering the present Office Action Non-Final.
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) 1, 3-4, 6, 10-14, 16-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
being unpatentable over (USPub20240278539) in view of (CN205899054)
Regarding claims 1, 3-4 and 6 ‘539 teaches the following glazing unit, having first and second areas, comprising outer pane 12 having first and second surfaces, an inner pane 14 having first and second surfaces, and both pans are bonded by an interlayer 16 contacting the first surface of the inner pane 14 and second surface of outer pane 12 (Figures).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
411
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown above, the first area is a display area having a light transmission of ≤10% via dark opaque layer 18 which can be a black print of enamel (see 0027) and the first display area is provided also with a reflective layer 20 which can be a p-polarized light reflective coating (see 0029).
While ‘539 may not discuss the specifics of their p-polarized light reflecting coating, ‘539 does not appear to place limits on their coating material other than it preferably reflects 4-50% p-polarized light (0029). As such, it would have been well within the skill of the art to look to the prior art to find desirable coatings capable of reflecting p-polarized light within the above range.
Additionally, note that ‘539 is directed to a HUD laminated glazing having a p-polarized light reflecting coating on one of the glass surfaces.
As ‘054, who similarly teaches laminated glazing with p-polarizing reflective coating, discloses that their coating having a sequence of layers having high and low index layers is desirable for reflecting no less than 9% p-polarized light, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify ‘539 to include their p-polarized reflective coating being that according to ‘054 for reflection of p-polarized light.
Regarding claims 10-11, 13: ‘539’s p-polarized reflective coating being that according to ‘054 will include high refractive index and low refractive index materials meeting that recited in claims 10-11 and 13 wherein starting from the substrate, there is
at least one high index layer and at least one low index layer having a thickness either
falling within or overlapping that claimed (see entire document) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12: Note that claim 12 is a product by process claim and it has been held by the courts while such claims may be limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In the instant case, given that ‘819’s product is the same as claimed, the claim is considered to be met.
Regarding claim 14 and 20: 539’s p-polarized reflective coating being that according to ‘054 can include starting from the substrate,
a layer of high refractive index 5-50nm thick (first layer) / a layer of low index 5-50nm thick (second layer)/ a layer of high index 5-70nm thick/ a layer of low index 60-230nm thick/ a layer of high index 10-100nm thick (third layer)/ a layer of low index 70-200nm thick (fourth layer) (see ‘054)
meeting the general claimed sequence with thicknesses either falling within or overlapping the ranges claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Additionally, note that as shown above, the coating comprises a 5-70nm thick layer of high index which ‘can be a nitride of Zr (see ‘054). Given that ZrN is an absorbent material used by Applicants (see publication par 0124, 0128-0129), the layer being zirconium nitride is considered to be an absorbent material as claimed and will be expected to have the same properties claimed (MPEP 2112).
The 5-70nm thickness overlaps the range claimed (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16: The glazing can be provided with an additional anti-fingerprint or easy to clean coating (see 0039).
Regarding claim 17: The interlayer can be wedge shaped (see 0042-0043).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over
(USPub20240278539) and CN205899054 as applied to claim 1 or alternatively, in further view of either one of (USPub2023358937) or (USPub20190064516).
Regarding claim 2: 539’s second area is a viewing area (see entire disclosure) but 539 does not specify the transmittance in this area. However, note that ‘539 is directed to a HUD laminated glazing and given that ‘937, who similarly teaches HUD laminated glazing, suggests ≥70% visible transmittance being the general regulatory safety requirement for HUD glazings for driver viewing/visibility (see 0004-0006), one skilled in the art would reasonably conclude, absent a teaching to the contrary, 539’ area to have ≥70% visible transmittance.
Alternatively, again note that ‘539 is directed to a HUD laminated glazing having a p-polarized light reflecting coating on one of the glass surfaces.
As ‘937 and ‘516, who each similarly teach HUD laminated glazing having a p-polarized light reflecting coating on one of the glass surfaces, discuss the desire for ≥70% visible transmittance (see 0004-0006 in ‘937 and entire disclosure of ‘516), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘539 to include their viewing area having ≥70% visible transmittance for visibility through the windshield.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over (USPub20240278539) and CN205899054 as applied to claim 1 in view of (USPub20210078303).
Regarding claim 15 and 17: While ‘539 may not disclose the presence of a further IR reflective coating, ‘539 does not exclude this and instead, only generally teach HUD laminated glazing having a p-polarized coating on one of the glass panes.
As ‘303, who similarly teaches HUD laminated glazing having a p-polarized coating on one of the glass panes, discloses that such glazings can further comprise an IR reflective coating with an interlayer according to their invention for heat shielding while suppression of multiple images, etc. (see 0014, 0032), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of invention to modify ‘539 to include an IR reflective coating and an interlayer according to ‘303 for heat shielding while suppression of multiple images, etc..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed August 21, 2026 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
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
