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
Newly submitted claims 38-39 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Claims 38 and 39 are drawn to a display unit (species c).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 38-39 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I Claims 16-22, 24-26 and 34-36 in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground that the special technical feature including the newly added limitation makes contribution over Mannheim Astete. This is not found persuasive because the special technical feature including the newly added limitation does not make contribution over a combination of Mannheim Astete and Frost (see prior art rejection of claim 16 below).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 16, 27, 30 and 32 are amended, claims 1-15 and 23 are canceled, claims 36-39 are added and claims 16-22 and 24-39 are pending. Currently, claims 27-33, 38 and 39 are withdrawn as non-elected invention.
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 16, 17, 19-21, 24-26 and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (US 2020/0254731 A1) in view of Frost et al. (US 2002/0094407 A1).
Claim 16: Mannheim Astete teaches a glass laminate comprising:
an outer glass layer 201 having a second surface 102 (Fig. 3B and [0073]);
a first plastic bonding interlayer 4 and an obscuration 8 provided on the second surface 102 of the outer glass layer 201, wherein the first plastic bonding interlayer 4 and the obscuration 8 are adjacent to each other (Fig. 3B and [0073]);
a film 17 provided on the plastic bonding interlayer 4 and the obscuration 8, wherein the film 17 can be a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (Figs, 3B and 7A, [0053], [0073], [0112] and claim 6);
a second plastic bonding interlayer 4 provided on the film 17 (Fig. 3B and [0073]); and
an inner glass layer 202 provided on the second plastic bonding interlayer 4 (Fig. 3B and [0073]).
The glass laminate meets the claimed laminate pane, the outer glass layer 201 meets the claimed outer pane, the first plastic bonding interlayer 4 meets the claimed transparent connecting film, the obscuration 8 meets the claimed opaque connecting film, the film 17 meets the claimed PET functional film, the second plastic bonding interlayer 4 meets the claimed transparent inner thermoplastic layer, the inner glass layer 202 meets the claimed inner pane, the region where the first plastic bonding interlayer 4 is located meets the claimed transparent see-through region, and the region where the obscuration 8 is located meets the claimed opaque masking region.
Mannheim Astete does not teach providing a coating or a layer on the PET film 17. However, Frost teaches a laminated glass sheet comprising a solar protection coating 7 on a PET central ply 5 (Fig. 1 and [0077]). Mannheim Astete and Frost are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the laminated glass art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Frost with the invention of Mannheim Astete, (i.e., applying the coating 17 of Frost onto the PET functional film of Mannheim Astete), and the motivation for combining would be to, as Frost suggested, to provide a laminated glass with a solar protection properties [0077].
In the combination of Mannheim Astete and Frost, the total thickness the coating 17 and first plastic bonding interlayer 4 would be higher than the thickness of the second plastic bonding interlayer 4.
Claim 17: The solar protection coating 7 of Frost meets the claimed transparent second outer connecting layer.
Claim 19: Mannheim Astete teaches the first plastic bonding interlayer 4 can be made of a polyvinyl butyl (PVB) [0074] which is a thermoplastic material.
Claim 20: Mannheim Astete teaches the glass laminate further comprises a dielectric layer as an infrared reflecting coating [0081].
Claim 21: Mannheim Astete teaches the glass laminate further comprises a metal layer as an infrared reflecting coating [0081].
Claim 24: Mannheim Astete teaches the first and second plastic bonding interlayers 4 can be made of a polyvinyl butyl (PVB) [0074].
Claims 25 and 26: The obscuration 8 of Mannheim Astete meets the claimed opaque connecting film.
Claims 34-35: Mannheim Astete teaches the glass laminate can be used to manufacture a windshield (abstract and [0072]).
Claim 36: Mannheim Astete teaches part of light from the incident ray 42 entering the glass is reflected back [0097].
Claims 22 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (US 2020/0254731 A1) and Frost et al. (US 2002/0094407 A1) as applied to claim 16 and 21, and further in view of Legrand et al. (US 2017/0361576 A1).
Mannheim Astete and Frost teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claims 22 and 37: Mannheim Astete does not teach the type of metal used to form the metal layer of the infrared reflecting coating. However, Legrand teaches a silver infrared reflecting layer 13 in a glass laminate (Fig. 3, abstract and [0108]). Mannheim Astete and Legrand are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the glass laminate art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the silver infrared reflecting layer 13 of Legrand with the invention of Mannheim Astete, and the motivation would be, as Legrand suggested, to make it possible to reflect infrared radiation [0108].
Pertinent Prior Arts
Zhang (US 2016/0052241 A1), Gima (US 2021/0362477 A1) and Hubert et al. (US 2018/0170013 A1).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
May 14, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights