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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and amendments received on February 13, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claim 1 is amended; claims 2, 9, 16, and 21 are cancelled; claims 13-15 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 17-20 pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmanan et al. (WO 2020/043418, machine translation previously provided) in view of Nishihama et al. (JP 2008-133141, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claims 1, 7, 8, and 20, Lakshmanan et al. teaches a car windshield (1) formed as a laminated glass panel with first and second glass panes (1a, 1b) and first and second polymer films (1c, 1d) glued between the glass panes ([0063], Figs. 1a-1b, 2-3). As shown in Figs. 2 and 3, reproduced below, embodiments of the windshield (1’, 1”) include the first polymer film (1c’, 1c”) used in the predominant surface area of the windscreen, while the second, stiffer polymer film (1d’, 1d”) is used either in the lateral edge and corner areas, or arranged in the form of a surrounding frame ([0069], [0072]). The first surface area (first portion) is larger than the second surface area (second portion), wherein the second region has an area share of less than 50%, preferably less than 30% of the total area of the laminated glass pane ([0022]-[0023], [0045]-[0046]).
PNG
media_image1.png
334
467
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
318
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the first polymer film may be a polyvinyl butyral (PVB) film with a modulus of elasticity of less than 20 MPa, while the second polymer film may be a PVB film with a modulus of elasticity of greater than 100 MPa, each measured according to ASTM D882 [0047]. Lakshmanan et al. further teaches that the thicknesses of the first and second polymer films are essentially the same (i.e., preferably less than 10% different) in order to prevent stresses in the laminated glass pane due to thickness variations at the transition between the first and second portions ([0026]-[0027]). Lakshmanan et al. further teaches that the laminated glass pane has only a first surface area and a second surface area which together cover the entire surface (100% of the surface area) of the glass pane [0024].
As shown in each of the above embodiments, the windshield has a motor edge (i.e., a bottom edge), a roof edge (i.e., a top edge), and two side edges running therebetween. Although Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the stiffer second polymer film may be arranged in the side edge and corner areas (as shown in Fig. 2), or in the form of a surrounding frame along the edges of the laminated glass panes (as shown in Fig. 3) in order to increase the stiffness, mechanical load capacity, and stability of the window in certain areas, e.g., to protect against window breakage in the event of a stone impact on the edge of the window ([0044], [0070], [0075]), the reference does not expressly teach that the second portion is a contiguous region that extends (a) continuously along an entire length of the motor edge and (b) from the motor edge in a direction of the roof edge along only a portion of each of the two side edges such that the second portion is absent (i) along the roof edge, (ii) along part of each of the two side edges, and (iii) at upper corners formed between the roof edge and the two side edges.
However, in the analogous art of vehicle windshields, Nishihama et al. teaches a laminated glass (11) for use as a windshield in an automobile (10), wherein the laminated glass is constructed by sandwiching an intermediate film (11-3) between two glass plates, an outer plate (11-1) and an inner pane (11-2) ([0013], [0019], Figs. 1-7). Nishihama et al. teaches that the intermediate film (11-3) comprises an intermediate film (11A-3; second polymer film) having high tensile stiffness located a first region (11A; second portion) along the bottom edge of the windshield, and an intermediate film (11B-3; first polymer film) having a lower tensile stiffness located a second region (11B; first portion) along the top edge of the windshield ([0019], Figs. 1-7).
Nishihama et al. teaches configurations of the first and second regions in Figs. 7(a) and 7(b) which are substantially identical to the configurations shown in Lakshmanan et al. Nishihama et al. further teaches equivalent configurations in Figs. 2, 6(a), and 6(b) in which the first region (11A) is a contiguous region that extends continuously along an entire length of the motor edge and extends from the motor edge towards the roof edge of the windshield along only a portion of each of the two side edges. Nishihama et al. teaches that an interlayer film with high tensile stiffness is difficult to stretch, and therefore has the characteristic that even if a pedestrian collides with the laminated glass in a traffic accident and the glass is shattered, in particular near the bottom edge or the periphery of the laminated glass, the pedestrian is unlikely to break through the laminated glass and reach the dashboard (12) or the instrument panel (14) inside the vehicle ([0007], [0011], [0017], [0032], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the windshield of Lakshmanan et al. by forming the stiffer second polymer film to have a configuration in which the second surface area is a contiguous region that extends continuously along an entire length of the motor edge and from the motor edge towards the roof edge only along a portion of each of the two side edges as claimed, as taught by Nishihama et al., given that Nishihama et al. recognizes that the arrangements of the first and second portions taught by Lakshaman et al. and the claimed arrangement of the first and second portions are equivalent configurations known to be useful for the same purpose of providing local stiffness in certain areas of a windshield. See MPEP 2144.06(II). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to form the second portion such that it extends continuously along the entire length of the motor edge and from the motor edge toward the roof edge along only a portion of the two side edges as claimed, as shown in Figs. 2, 6(a), and 6(b) of Nishihama et al., in order to prevent a pedestrian from breaking through the bottom edge of the windshield and colliding with the dashboard or instrument panel inside the vehicle in the event of a collision.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. In the embodiments shown in Figs. 2, 6(a), and 6(b) of Nishihama et al., the first region (11A; second portion) extends, at least in portions, from the motor edge toward the roof edge by an amount that corresponds to 10% to 30%, or from 15% to 30%, of the height of the windshield.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. In the embodiments shown in Figs. 2, 6(a), and 6(b) of Nishihama et al., the first region (11A; second portion) is sized such that the first region corresponds to at least 70%, or at least 90% of a projection of the dashboard of the motor vehicle onto the windshield (see Figs. 1 and 3). In particular, as noted above, Nishihama et al. teaches that by arranging the high tensile stiffness interlayer film (11A-3; second polymer film) along the bottom edge of the windshield (i.e., in front of the dashboard), it is less likely that a pedestrian will collide with interior structures such as the dashboard if they break through the laminated glass ([0007], [0032]).
Regarding claim 5, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Lakshmanan et al. further teaches that the first polymer film may be a 0.8 mm thick standard PVB film, while the second polymer film may be a 0.8 mm thick, stiffer PVB film ([0072]-[0073]). Therefore, the thicknesses of the first and second polymer films may differ by less than 5%.
Regarding claim 6, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Lakshmanan et al. further teaches that the thickness of the first and second polymer films is the same and lies in the range of approximately 0.6 mm to 1.0 mm ([0054]), equivalent to 600 µm to 1000 µm, which falls squarely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Lakshmanan et al. further teaches that the panes of the laminated glass panel are fully bonded using the first and second polymer films, wherein the first and second surface areas together cover the entire surface of the laminated glass panel ([0023]-[0024]). As shown in Fig. 1b, the first and second polymer films are arranged adjacent to one another in a direction perpendicular to the lamination direction, such that first and second peripheral film edges are in direct contact to form a common contact edge so that the first and second films cover the entire surface without overlap. Likewise, Fig. 4 in Nishihama et al. illustrates the first and second peripheral film edges being in direct contact and forming a common contact edge.
Regarding claim 11, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 10 above. In the embodiments shown in Figs. 2, 6(a), and 6(b) of Nishihama et al., the common contact edge between the first and second peripheral film edges runs between the two side edges of the windshield.
Regarding claim 12, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Lakshmanan et al. further teaches that the first and second glass panes may each have a thickness of 1.5 mm ([0063]), which falls squarely within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Lakshmanan et al. in view of Nishihama et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 above. As noted above, Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the thickness of the first and second polymer films is the same and lies in the range of approximately 0.6 mm to 1.0 mm [0054]. In particular, Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the first polymer film may be a 0.8 mm thick standard PVB film and that the second polymer film may be a 0.8 mm thick, stiffer PVB film ([0072]-[0073]). Therefore, Lakshmanan et al. teaches exemplary thicknesses for the first and second polymer films which fall squarely within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-12 of the remarks filed February 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant first argues on pages 7-9 that Nisihama’s governing parameter is tensile rigidity, not modulus, and that Nishihama’s teachings imply low modulus at sub-1 mm thickness. In particular, the Applicant argues that Lakshmanan’s reinforcement film has a significantly higher modulus at the same thickness, and that nothing in Nishihama suggests that such a large stiffness jump is appropriate for its pedestrian-intrusion objective or would preserve pedestrian-safety outcomes. The Applicant further argues that the Office action does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that relocating such a high-modulus reinforcement film into a large bottom band (10-40% area) would predictably achieve Nishihama’s pedestrian intrusion goal while maintaining laminate integrity and occupant visibility.
These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the pedestrian-intrusion goal, Nishihama et al. teaches that an interlayer film with high tensile stiffness is difficult to stretch and therefore has a characteristic that even if a pedestrian collides with the laminated glass and the glass is shattered, the pedestrian is unlikely to break through the glass and hit the dashboard or the instrument panel [0017]. Due to the use of the high stiffness film, the energy required for the interlayer to stretch is greater than that required for laminated glass using a soft (i.e., low stiffness) film, such that the collision energy the pedestrian receives in the event of collision with the dashboard is smaller than if a conventional soft film was used, thereby reducing the chances of fatal injuries in the event of a pedestrian collision ([0017]-[0018]). Nisihihama et al. therefore teaches that the high tensile stiffness is critical to achieving the pedestrian intrusion and pedestrian safety goals, such that one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the collision- and injury-prevention effects taught by Nishihama et al. to be similarly achieved when an even higher modulus film, such as that taught by Lakshmanan, is used. There is no indication in Nishihama et al. that a high tensile modulus in the range of 100 MPa or greater would not be suitable for achieving the desired pedestrian safety effects; indeed, the tensile stiffness of the intermediate film in the first region is said to be at least twice that of the second region ([0016]), such that no upper limit is set on the suitable range of tensile stiffness values.
With respect to the laminate integrity and occupant visibility, it is noted that Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the selection of materials used and the dimensioning of components depends on the requirements of the specific intended use, especially with regard to the desired mechanical load-bearing capacity of the finished glazing, wherein designs that can withstand higher loads, such as explosion-proof glazing or glazing in armored vehicles, are significantly more expensive than standard designs ([0004]-[0006]). In particular, Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the greatest load-bearing capacity can be achieved by covering large areas with the second area formed of stiffer polymer film, but that this is generally not desirable for cost reasons, such that the second area is preferably less than 30% of the total area of the glass pane [0046]. One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore recognize that the amount (i.e., area ratio) of the high modulus second portion can be suitably optimized in order to achieve the desired balance of load-bearing properties (i.e., laminate integrity) and cost of the laminated glass. For an intended application in which only a relatively low load-bearing capacity is necessary, it would be obvious to use a lower area ratio of the stiffer polymer film in order to form the laminated glass panel at a low cost. With respect to the occupant visibility, it is noted that Nishihama et al. teaches that the low and high stiffness films are welded together, making the seam occurring therebetween less noticeable so that it does not obstruct the visibility of the passengers [0020]. Given that Lakshmanan et al. and Nishihama et al. both teach the use of transparent PVB films as the low and high modulus films, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that such welding may be performed at any seam between the two films in order to reduce the visibility thereof, thus improving occupant visibility.
The Applicant next argues on pages 9-10 that the Office Action’s equivalent configurations/same purpose rationale is unsupported because the references address different engineering objectives and therefore direct stiffness to different regions for different functional outcomes. In particular, the Applicant argues that Lakshmanan et al. uses a stiffer polymer film for structural loading at the bonded perimeter and edge-impact robustness, while Nishihama’s bottom-band configuration is directed to pedestrian intrusion mitigation.
These arguments are not persuasive. With respect to the Applicant’s argument that the equivalency between the bottom-band configuration and perimeter/corner reinforcement is not disclosed as such in the references, it is noted that Nishihama et al. teaches that the position, shape, and size of the high stiffness region (11A) is determined based on a comprehensive range of factors, such as collision safety and ease of manufacturing the laminated glass [0024]. Nishihama et al. teaches a variety of configurations for the high and low stiffness regions (11A, 11B), including one in Fig. 7(c) which is identical to the frame embodiment shown in Fig. 3 of Lakshmanan et al., as well as bottom-band configurations in Figs. 2, 6(a), and 6(b), which satisfy the claimed configuration of the high stiffness second portion. Nishihama et al. therefore recognizes that frame-stiffened configurations and bottom band-stiffened configurations are suitable alternatives for forming laminated glass windshields having improved impact-resistant properties. As to the Applicant’s argument that the references direct stiffness to different regions for different functional outcomes, it is noted that both Lakshmanan et al. and Nishihama et al. teach that their high stiffness films are provided in a targeted area (i.e., either around the entire frame, along edge and corner regions, or along the bottom edge only) in order to improve the impact resistance of the windshield in the desired area. Whether the impact resistance is provided for the purpose of providing protection in the event of a stone impact or upon collision with a pedestrian, the overall objective of improving impact resistance via the use of a high stiffness film in a targeted area is the same.
The Applicant further argues on pages 10-11 that Nishihama teaches achieving the desired tensile rigidity by varying thickness and plasticizer, such that Nishihama’s disclosed solution encourages thickness variation to meet the tensile rigidity target and does not address the laminate stress issue at the boundary that the present invention solves.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the rejections above, Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the thicknesses of the first and second polymer films are essentially the same (i.e., less than 10% different) in order to prevent stresses in the glass pane due to thickness variations at the transition therebetween ([0026]-[0027]). Lakshmanan et al. therefore addresses the claimed limitation as well as the advantage associated therewith. The teachings of Nishihama et al. do not contradict the teachings of Lakshmanan et al. Rather, it is noted that Nishihama et al. teaches the tensile stiffness of the films can be varied appropriately by adjusting the amount of plasticizer or by adjusting the thickness thereof ([0016]), such that the tensile modulus differences can be achieved by tuning only the amount of plasticizer while keeping the thicknesses constant. Moreover, it is noted that the modification proposed in the obviousness rejection relies on Nishihama et al. only for its teaching of the claimed arrangement of the first and second portions, such that the Applicant’s arguments directed to Nishihama et al. failing to teach certain features of the claimed invention which are addressed by Lakshmanan et al. are not persuasive. Applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(III).
The Applicant further argues on page 11 that the proposed modification is not a routine design choice because it reallocates reinforcement away from Lakshmanan’s stated high-load regions.
This argument is not persuasive. As explained above, Lakshmanan et al. teaches that the selection of materials used and the dimensioning of components depends on the requirements of the specific intended use, especially with regard to the desired mechanical load-bearing capacity of the finished glazing, wherein designs that can withstand higher loads, such as explosion-proof glazing or glazing in armored vehicles, are significantly more expensive than standard designs ([0004]-[0006]). Although the proposed modification involving rearranging the high and low modulus films such that the stiffer portion is only located along the bottom, as taught by Nishihama et al., would likely reduce the load-bearing capacity of the laminated glass pane as compared to the frame-shaped configuration taught by Lakshmanan et al. which is said to have a high load-bearing capacity, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the laminated glass pane having a lower load-bearing capacity would still be capable of being used as a vehicle windshield. Based on the teachings of Lakshmanan et al. cited above, it is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to select a desired arrangement for the low and high modulus portions of the interlayer depending upon the load-bearing capacity required for a specific intended use of the laminated glass pane. The Applicant’s arguments directed to the proposed modification are not persuasive given that the rearrangement of the low and high modulus films in the laminated glass pane taught by Lakshmanan et al. to have the configuration taught by Nishihama et al. would not result in the laminated glass being inoperable for its intended purpose as a vehicle windshield. See MPEP 2143.01(V).
The Applicant further argues on pages 11-12 that the Office Action lacks a reasoned showing of reasonable expectation of success for using Lakshmanan’s high-modulus film in Nishihama’s pedestrian band.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained above, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2145(III). The proposed modification is not to “transplant” the high modulus film taught by Lakshmanan et al. into the windshield taught by Nishihama et al., but rather is to modify the laminated glass pane taught by Lakshmanan et al. by adjusting the arrangement or configuration of the low and high modulus films according to the teachings of Nishihama et al. As explained above, the pedestrian safety objectives taught by Nishihama et al. would be expected to be achieved even when using a higher modulus film, as taught by Lakshmanan et al., given that the collision safety effects rely on the high tensile properties of the film to prevent breakage upon collision and/or to reduce the collision energy the pedestrian receives upon collision with the dashboard [0017]. The Applicant has not provided any evidence that the proposed modification would not have a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143.02(II).
Furthermore, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See MPEP 2145(X)(A) and In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, the conclusion of obviousness is based solely on the teachings of the cited prior art and does not rely upon the disclosure in the instant application.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights