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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed by the Applicant on 1/26/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-2, 4, 5,7, 11,12, 13,17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus (WO 2007077099 A1, cited previously) in view of Miyako (JP 2004349209 A) and further in view of Berard (FR 3034500 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 1, Paulus teaches a glazing (Fig.1, 2 and 5 and Abstract), comprising: a laminated structure including: a first glass sheet 21 with a first surface and a second surface; a second glass sheet 22 with a third surface and a fourth surface; an interlayer 26 (Paulus discloses interlayer Plies 26) between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet; and, a lighting system, including: a light source (B ,11 and 12 from Fig.1 and Paulus discloses: external light source 12) ; a light guide 24 attached to the light source and at least partially laminated between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet; and a light extraction zone 13 (see in Paulus: The shape of each scattering centre 13 determines the manner in which light within the glazing is decoupled) having a light extraction means laminated between the first glass sheet and the second glass sheet, such that the lighting system provides a directed light for an interior or exterior of a vehicle (see in Paulus: Figure 2 provides more detail about the construction of roof window 10 in that it is a laminate which comprises outer pane of glazing material, in the form of a pane of soda lime silica glass 21, inner pane of glazing material, also in the form of a pane of soda lime silica glass 22, functional layer 23, waveguide 24, adhesive 25 for attaching optical coupler 11 to the edge of the glazing and interlayer plies 26 which are interleaved between each ply of the laminate and join them all together).
Paulus teaches the light guide 24 is embedded into the interlayer (26) but does not teach the light guide extends at least partially into a thickness of the interlayer.
However, it is a matter of design and space management as to how the light guide is embedded within layers in a glazing or lighting system within the various parts of a vehicle. The light guide may need to be embedded in the thickness direction given how much space is to be managed and saved, to maneuver the disposition of the light guide and to get the best use of the available space in the glaze/vehicle lighting system in the various/desired areas of the interior of a vehicle.
Prior art that teaches in vehicular lighting application, the light guide extends at least partially into a thickness of the interlayer, wherein Miyako discloses: The other end of the light guide 12 is buried in the operation body 11 from the exposure port 11 c in the case 13 a and extends to the light emitting display unit 31, and the end surface 12 b is provided on the back surface of the light emitting display unit 31.
Therefore it is a matter of design, and the exact location wherein the light guide needs to be disposed or maneuvered within the interior of the vehicle and an optimized space management in order to dispose the light guide in the thickness direction and therefore changing the location of the light guide from the location shown by Paulus to a location in the thickness direction of the interlayer, is only considered to be an obvious modification of Paulus device that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would be able to provide using routine experimentation since there is no invention in shifting the position if the operation of the device would not be thereby modified, in order to achieve optimal space management.
Paula in view of Miyako does not teach at least one lens positioned at the light extraction zone.
Berard teaches the lens for example positioned at the light extraction zone.
The guide refers to the light guide 1 in Figure below, wherein as shown below with the arrow pointing downwards, the light extraction surface is surface 11. Therefore, on the lower side of surface 11 is the external medium, and therefore the lower side of surface 11 is the light extraction zone, whereas Berard discloses: the lens for example positioned at the light extraction zone, that is indicative that the lens is positioned at the position shown by the arrow pointing downwards, at the inner or the outer surface of 11, where the arrow points downwards.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Paulus in view of Miyako (in Paulus) in turn already discloses a lens in the light introduction region and whereas Berard teaches the lens at the light extraction zone and from the well-known collimating properties of a lens, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a lens at the light input region in order to collimate the input light (from the teachings of Paulus) and in turn to place a lens at the light extraction zone , as claimed ,in order to collimate the output light (from the teachings of Berard).
Regarding claim 17, Paulus teaches a method (Fig.2 and 5) of preparing a glazing comprising: aligning a lighting system including a light guide 24, a light source (B, 11 and 12 in Fig.1), and a light extraction zone (13) with a light extraction means throughout at least part of an interlayer (as it is on the upper surface of the interlayer), wherein the light guide is attached to the light source; embedding the aligned lighting system in the interlayer 26; laminating the interlayer between a first glass sheet 21 and a second glass sheet 22 such that the interlayer is in between the first glass sheet and second glass sheet (also see rejection in claim 1 above).
Paulus teaches the light guide 24 is embedded into the interlayer (26) but does not teach the light guide extends at least partially into a thickness of the interlayer.
However, it is a matter of design and space management as to how the light guide is embedded within layers in a glazing or lighting system within the various parts of a vehicle. The light guide may need to be embedded in the thickness direction given how much space is to be managed and saved, to maneuver the disposition of the light guide and to get the best use of the available space in the glaze/vehicle lighting system in the various/desired areas of the interior of a vehicle.
Prior art that teaches in vehicular lighting application, the light guide extends at least partially into a thickness of the interlayer, wherein Miyako discloses: The other end of the light guide 12 is buried in the operation body 11 from the exposure port 11 c in the case 13 a and extends to the light emitting display unit 31, and the end surface 12 b is provided on the back surface of the light emitting display unit 31.
Therefore it is a matter of design, and the exact location wherein the light guide needs to be disposed or maneuvered within the interior of the vehicle and an optimized space management in order to dispose the light guide in the thickness direction and therefore changing the location of the light guide from the location shown by Paulus to a location in the thickness direction of the interlayer, is only considered to be an obvious modification of Paulus device that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would be able to provide using routine experimentation since there is no invention in shifting the position if the operation of the device would not be thereby modified, in order to achieve optimal space management.
Paula in view of Miyako does not teach at least one lens positioned at the light extraction zone.
Berard teaches the lens for example positioned at the light extraction zone.
The guide refers to the light guide 1 in Figure below, wherein as shown below with the arrow pointing downwards, the light extraction surface is surface 11. Therefore, on the lower side of surface 11 is the external medium, and therefore the lower side of surface 11 is the light extraction zone, whereas Berard discloses: the lens for example positioned at the light extraction zone, that is indicative that the lens is positioned at the position shown by the arrow pointing downwards, at the inner or the outer surface of 11, where the arrow points downwards.
PNG
media_image1.png
322
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Further, Paulus in view of Miyako (in Paulus) in turn already discloses a lens in the light introduction region and whereas Berard teaches the lens at the light extraction zone and from the well-known collimating properties of a lens, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use a lens at the light input region in order to collimate the input light (from the teachings of Paulus) and in turn to place a lens at the light extraction zone , as claimed ,in order to collimate the output light (from the teachings of Berard).
Regarding claim 2, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches a glazing, wherein the interlayer is comprised of at least two separate layers (26 in Paulus).
Regarding claim 11, Pa Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches a glazing (Fig.1, 2 and 5 in Paulus), wherein the light source is a laser (see in Paulus: through which the laser beam passes).
Regarding claim 12, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches a glazing (Fig.1, 2 and 5 in Paulus), wherein the light source attaches to the light guide via a fiber optic connector or an optical fiber coupler (see in Paulus: optical coupler 11).
Regarding claim 4, Paulus in view of Miyako teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding a laminated portion of the light guide is positioned substantially along an opaque masking layer.
Berard teaches a glazing (Fig.1) wherein a laminated portion of the light guide is positioned substantially along an opaque masking layer 7. Accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use an opaque mask, as disclosed in Berard, in the device of Paulus in view of Miyako in order to mask the outgoing light directed in the upward direction so that light is directedly directionally/downwards (see in Berard: On the face 12 'is added a masking peripheral band 7 in opaque enamel which can mask the PCB support and even the outgoing light in this zone).
Regarding claim 5, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches a glazing, wherein the opaque masking layer is an enamel print (see in Berard: the masking element possibly being: a part of the polymeric encapsulation then triface (sufficiently opaque, black), and / or a sufficiently opaque enamel).
Regarding claim 7, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches a glazing, wherein the light extraction (130,150) means includes a luminescent composition (consisting of electroluminescent device in Berard).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches a glazing, wherein the top glass sheet is covered by a darkened layer (in Berard: a masking peripheral band 7 in opaque enamel which can mask the PCB support and even the outgoing light in this zone) but does not explicitly teach first or second glass sheets are darkened in color (for claim 13) and further comprising providing an opaque masking layer on at least part of the interlayer, the first glass sheet, or the second glass sheet (for claim 19). However, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the same technique of darkened layer 7 of Berard, to darken the entire the first or the second glass sheets, in order to provide directional light only in one direction, while the light in the other direction is darkened.
Regarding claim 20, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches attaching a lens to the surface of the second glass sheet at the light extracton zone (see Berard in the rejection of claim 17 above, the same reason to combine art applies).
Claims 7, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard and further in view of Pohlen ((WO 2020188078 A1, cited by Applicant, cited previously)
Regarding claim 7, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding, the light extraction means includes a luminescent composition.
Pohlen teaches the light extraction (130,150) means includes a luminescent composition ([0030], [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use luminescent compositions as disclosed in Pohlen in the device of Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard in order to achieve the specific color rending.
Regarding claim 15, Paulus in view of Miyako, Berard and Pohlen teaches a glazing, wherein the lighting system provides a reading light for a vehicle interior ([0026] in Pohlen) in order to achieve versatile uses.
Regarding claim 16, Paulus in view of Miyako, Berard and Pohlen teaches a glazing, wherein the lighting system provide a brake light to a vehicle exterior ([0008] in Pohlen) in order to achieve versatile uses.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard and further in view of Frei (US 20220310893 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claim 14, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches the invention set forth in claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the glazing further comprising an infrared reflective layer.
Frei teaches a glazing further comprising an infrared reflective layer ([0150]) and accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use an infrared reflector, as disclosed in Frei, in the device of Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard in order to drive the radiation out of the vehicle window ([0150] in Frei).
Claims 8,9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard and further in view of Kleo (FR 3087726 A1, cited previously)
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard teaches the invention set forth in claims 1 and 17 above, but is silent regarding the light guide extends out of at least one side the glazing (For claim 9) and the light guide of the lighting system is aligned such that it extends out of the glazing to attach to a light source (for claim 18).
Kleo teaches this feature (see in Kleo: The light guide according to the invention is in particular: 12 - made of glass or plastic, preferably colorless, clear or extraclear, - and / or flat or curved, flexible (adapted, conforming to the curvature of the first sheet), - of width W 'less than or equal to the width W of the masking zone (tape etc.) and / or at least 1 or 3 or 5cm 5 - and preferably with a thickness of at most 8 or 5mm, - flexible, plastic, behind masking tape and protruding from the edge of the glazing AND The glazing 900 differs from the glazing 600 of the sixth embodiment in that: the light guide 4 protrudes into a zone called the peripheral zone devoid of encapsulation 90) and accordingly, it would have been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to use the configuration, as disclosed in Kleo, in the device of Paulus in view of Miyako and Berard in order to accommodate the glaze efficiently within a trim.
Regarding claim 8, Paulus in view of Miyako, Berard and Kleo a glazing, wherein the light guide is arranged around the periphery of the glazing (see in Kleo: Is a glazing unit comprising a transparent (light guide) (at the periphery) opaque polycarbonate sheet glass of a double material).
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed by the Applicant on 1/26/26 is acknowledged, however, they are not found to be persuasive, wherein for the limitation of at least one lens positioned at the light extraction zone, Examiner has provided an even clearer explanation with drawings in the rejection above, wherein the limitation of claims 10 and 20, were added to claims 1 and 17 respectively. Therefore, Berard teaches the amended limitation in claims 1 and 17 as claimed.
Further, Examiner has provided two more prior art below, that teach the limitation of: at least one lens positioned at the light extraction zone.
For example; in FR 2987323 A1, lens 21 is positioned at the light extraction zone in Drawing below:
PNG
media_image2.png
349
551
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As it discloses: Here, the means for concentrating the extracted light 20 are in the form of a lens system comprising a series of lenses 21 which make it possible to concentrate the extracted light radiation into a concentrated radiation 12 according to a cone. predefined.
And FR 2989176 A1 discloses the light extraction zone to be 35 (Fig.3) having microlenses (see: Returning to FIG. 2, it can be seen that disposed opposite these extraction means (35) and interposed between the two glass sheets (3, 27) is a reflecting device (41 in Fig.2 and 3) comprising at least one micro-lens.
PNG
media_image3.png
259
559
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatima Farokhrooz whose telephone number is (571)-272-6043. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday, 9 am - 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s Supervisor, James Greece can be reached on (571) 272-3711.
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.
/Fatima N Farokhrooz/
Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights