DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
2. The preliminary amendment filed on June 8, 2024 has been entered in the above-identified application. Claims 1-13 are amended. New claim 14 has been added. Claims 1-14 are pending and are under consideration.
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.
3. Claims 3-5, 8-11, and 14 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 3, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 5, the acronyms “PVB, EVA, TPU, OCA, OCR, LOCA, PSA” should be amended to recite the full name of the polymer to avoid an ambiguity.
Claims 4, 5, 9 and 10 recite improper Markush groups and the Examiner suggests either using the term “or” between the alternative elements or amending the claim to recite proper Markush language.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
4. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mannheim Astete et al. (US 2020/0282922 A1).
Mannheim Astete et al. disclose a laminated automotive glazing with a cutout area in the interior layer of glass for mounting one or more cameras. The cameras are mounted to an insert bonded to the exterior layer or directly to the glass. The area between the edge of the cutout and the cameras can be filled with an adhesive to improve strength. The insert or camera mounting system can be extended such as to overlap the edge of glass to further improve the strength of the laminate. The windshield can also be provided with a lens to correct for any optical aberrations present. The lens can be bonded to the insert or directly to the glass. A typical automotive laminate (equivalent to the automotive laminated glazing of the claimed invention), as shown in FIG. 3, is comprised of two layers of glass, the exterior or outer 201 and interior or inner 202 (equivalent to the exterior glass layer and the interior glass layer of the claimed invention) that are permanently bonded together by a plastic layer 4 (interlayer) (equivalent to the plastic interlayer of the claimed invention). The plastic bonding layer 4 has the primary function of bonding the major faces of adjacent layers to each other. The material selected is typically a clear plastic when bonding to another glass layer. For automotive use, the most commonly used plastic layer 4 or interlayer is polyvinyl butyl (PVB). In addition to polyvinyl butyl, ionoplast polymers, ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), cast in place (CIP) liquid resin and thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) (meeting the limitations of claim 5) can also be used. Interlayers are available with enhanced capabilities beyond bonding the glass layers together. The laminated automotive glazing may include interlayers designed to dampen sound. Such interlayers are comprised whole or in part of a layer of plastic that is softer and more flexible than that normally used. In FIG. 4, the laminate has two glass layers 2, exterior 201 and interior 202, with each having opposing major faces bonded together permanently by at least one plastic bonding layer 4 and having at least one cutout 22 in the interior glass layer 202 in the area where at least one camera 16 is mounted (meeting the limitations of claim 4). The camera location may be in the top center area of the windshield (meeting the limitations of claim 12), the typical location on standard windshields. In this case, the cutout 22 may extend to the edge of glass. Other locations on the windshield may be used. If the location is inboard from the edge of glass, such as on a panoramic windshield (FIGS. 6A and 6B), a hole rather than a notch may be needed. An insert 9 is fabricated to fit into the cutout 22. The insert 9 is designed to align with the camera location when placed into the cutout 22. Sufficient clearance must be allocated to allow for the alignment taking into account the tolerance stack. In some embodiments, there is a 3 mm gap between the insert 9 and the edge of the cutout 22 in the interior glass layer 202. The insert 9 can be fabricated from any suitable material that can provide the strength needed. Potential materials include but are not limited to: annealed glass, chemically strengthened glass, heat strengthened glass, carbon fiber composite, steel, aluminum, titanium, plastic and fiberglass reinforced plastic all may be suitable depending upon the exact application and loading. The plastic bonding layer 4 can be used to bond the insert 9 to the surface of the exterior glass layer 201. The insert 9 may be further reinforced by the addition of additional components such as plates or other formed structures (not shown). The reinforcement may be formed as an integral part of the insert 9. An example would be an injected molded, cast or machined reinforced insert. The insert and the bracket used to mount the insert may be further reinforced to provide for additional strength. Common means include but are not limited to: increasing the thickness in at least a portion of the area of the bracket, insert or both, adding additional structural member to the assembly, the use of a stiff interlayer in place of at least a portion of the cutout area. (See Abstract and paragraphs 0001, 0007, 0062, 0063, 069-0074, 0094-0110).
With regards to the limitations that the cutout has a shape geometry with round corners, the cutout has a trapezoidal shape, the cutout’s round corners have a radii of curvature of more than 3 mm, and the number of layers of the performance interlayers and the plastic interlayers, the Examiner would like to point out that workable physical properties (such as number of layers or shapes of layers) are deemed to be obvious routine optimizations to one of ordinary skill in the art, motivated by the desire to obtain the required properties. Such differences will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such properties (such as number of layers or shapes of layers) are critical.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEEBA AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-1504. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-6pm.
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, CALLIE SHOSHO can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SHEEBA AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights