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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I Claims 1-12 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged. Currently, claims 13-15 are withdrawn as non-elected inventions.
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 1-7, 9-11 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 5,162,145).
Claim 1: Schaefer teaches a windshield (col. 4, line 33) comprising an outside silicate glass sheet 1 (col. 4, lines 31-32), a filtering band 7 (col. 4, line 49) in a pattern form of 7a and 7b (col. 5, lines 6 and 21), a thermoplastic interlayer 3 (col. 4, line 36) and an inside silicate glass sheet 2 (col. 4, line 32) in the order thereof (Fig. 2). The outside silicate glass sheet 1 meets the claimed outer pane, the filtering band 7 along the engine side of the windshield meets the claimed transparent cover print, the thermoplastic interlayer 3 meets the claimed thermoplastic intermediate layer, the inside silicate glass sheet 2 meets the claimed inner pane. Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 is a transparent enamel layer (col. 4, line 55). Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 is at least arranged along an engine edge and extends from the engine edge in a direction of a roof edge of the windshield (Fig. 1). Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 projects at least partially into the A field of view (main field of vision) of the windshield (Fig. 1).
Schaefer teaches the transparent enamel can have a transparency of 0-40% (col. 1, line 43). Schaefer also teaches the degree of coverage in the end section of 7b reaches about 5% (col. 5, lines 26). Schaefer does not teach the claimed light transmission range in the main field of vision of the filtering band 7. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the light transmission, and the motivation would be to provide unobstructed, see through area of the windshield that a driver be able to see the road ahead clearly. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 2: With respect to the area of the filtering band 7, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the area of the filtering band, and the motivation would be to control light and heat radiations (abstract), to provide desired tinted effect (col. 2, line 21) and to enhance outside appearance (col. 2, line 25). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 3: With respect to the area of the filtering band 7, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the area of the filtering band, and the motivation would be to control light and heat radiations (abstract), to provide desired tinted effect (col. 2, line 21) and to enhance outside appearance (col. 2, line 25). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 4: Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 is a transparent enamel layer (col. 4, line 55).
Claim 5: Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 is provided between the outside silicate glass sheet 1 and the thermoplastic interlayer 3 (Fig. 2).
Claim 6: Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 (col. 4, line 49) is provided in pattern forms of 7a and 7b (col. 5, lines 6 and 21) formed of a plurality of dots (col. 5, lines 9-29). The dots in the filtering band 7 meets the claimed print region, and the area not covered by the dotes meets the claimed non-print region.
Claim 7: Schaefer teaches the coverage in the 7b area could be about 5% (col. 5, line 26) which overlaps with the claimed 1-60%.
Claim 9: Schaefer teaches the enamel is bakable and contains glass (col. 1, lines 40-41). It is well established that glass is made of silicon oxide.
Claim 10: Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 is a transparent enamel layer (col. 4, line 55). It is well established that enamel layer by nature is a porous structure. With respect to the pore size of the porous structure, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the pore size, and the motivation would be to control the adhesive property of the layer. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 11: Schaefer teaches the thermoplastic interlayer 3 can be made of polyvinyl butyral (col. 4, line 37).
Claim 16: With respect to the area of the filtering band 7, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the area of the filtering band, and the motivation would be to control light and heat radiations (abstract), to provide desired tinted effect (col. 2, line 21) and to enhance outside appearance (col. 2, line 25). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 17: With respect to the area of the filtering band 7, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the area of the filtering band, and the motivation would be to control light and heat radiations (abstract), to provide desired tinted effect (col. 2, line 21) and to enhance outside appearance (col. 2, line 25). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 18: Schaefer teaches the transparent enamel can have a transparency of 0-40% (col. 1, line 43). Schaefer also teaches the degree of coverage in the end section of 7b reaches about 5% (col. 5, lines 26). Schaefer does not teach the claimed light transmission range in the main field of vision of the filtering band 7. However, the experimental modification of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fails to render applicants’ claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the light transmission, and the motivation would be to provide unobstructed, see through area of the windshield that a driver be able to see the road ahead clearly. A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
Claim 19: Schaefer teaches the filtering band 7 (col. 4, line 49) is provided in pattern forms of 7a and 7b (col. 5, lines 6 and 21) formed of a plurality of dots (col. 5, lines 9-29). The dots in the filtering band 7 meets the claimed print region, the area not covered by the dotes meets the claimed non-print region and the dots meet the claimed punctiform.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer (US 5,162,145) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Nishikawa (US 2008/0129073 A1).
Schaefer teaches the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claim 12: Schaefer does not teach the thickness of each of the outside silicate glass sheet 1 and inside silicate glass sheet 2. However, Nishikawa teaches a windshield comprising an exterior side glass 1 of 2 mm thickness, a laminated two interlayer films and an interior side plate glass 2 of 2 mm thickness (Fig. 1, Fig. 2 and [0029]). Schaefer and Nishikawa are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the windshield 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 Nishikawa, (i.e., proving glasses each having a thickness of 2mm) with the invention of Schaefer, and the motivation for combining would be to control noise and prevent shattering of the windshield).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Schaefer teaches the dots in the filtering band 7 are spaced apart 0.5-2 mm (0.05-0.2 cm). However, Schaefer does not teach or suggest the dots are spaced apart 1-50 cm as recited in claim 8 and 2-30 cm as recited in claim 20.
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
February 27, 2026
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785