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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12 January 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-14, 16-18, and 20 remain pending in the application, wherein claims 1-2 and 20 are amended and claims 15 and 19 are newly canceled.
Support in the instant specification for the amendments to claim 1 regarding the sequence of the anti-reflective layer is found in paragraph 0041. Support for the metal absorption layer is found in paragraph 0038 in view of the thickness of example 3 in paragraph 0073. The amendments to instant claim 2 are noted as not materially changing the claim limitations. The amendments to instant claim 20 reflect the limitations recited in instant claim 1. Accordingly, no new matter has been introduced by these amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGP America S.A. (WO 2021/105959, previously cited; “AGP”) as evidenced by Fleury et al. (US 2007/0188871; “Fleury”).
Claim 1: AGP teaches a solar control glazing having at least one glass substrate with a coating stack (p. 5), wherein a laminated sunroof is embodied and the lamination is indicated to be on an inner surface due to being on an inner glass on a surface away from an outer glass (p. 16) (i.e. the solar control glazing may be for a sunroof glass; i.e. the glass substrate has an outer surface and an inner surface). The coating stack on the glass includes the sequence of layers starting from the surface of the glass substrate of a barrier layer, a IR reflective layer, a thin absorbent layer of metal or partially-oxidized metal (i.e. a metal absorption layer) with a thickness of 3 to 10 nm, and a sub-stack of dielectric layers with AR (anti-reflection) function with alternating refractive index HLHL or MHL (i.e. the anti-reflective layer is at least one stacking with a high refractive index layer and low refractive index layer sequentially stacked in a direction away from the glass substrate based on definition of HLHL on p. 14) (p. 5). AGP does not specify the refractive indexes of the HL sublayers, but does teach example substack of Nb2O5\SiO2, which are conventionally known to have refractive index of about 2.35 and about 1.45 respectively (as evidenced by Fleury, paragraph 0006). These refractive indexes lie within (i.e. overlap) the instantly claimed ranges for high refractive index and low refractive index, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented. The typical example laminated sunroof is AF (i.e. anti-fingerprint coating)/SiO2 /Nb2O5/NiCr/ITO/Si3N4/Inner glass/…/Outer glass (p. 16). In view of the overall layer sequence disclosed on p. 5, the layer of NiCr corresponds to the absorbent layer (i.e. the metal absorption layer is made of a combination of Ni and Cr), which is generally disclosed as having a thickness of 3 to 10 nm (p. 5). This thickness overlaps the instantly claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05.
While not reciting a singular example of the instantly claimed sunroof glass, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date as AGP discloses a substantially identical sequence of layers and an overlapping range of thickness of the metal absorption layer, which the courts have held to be prima facie obvious, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2: AGP teaches that the coating stack may include a barrier layer to stop the alkali metal ions migration from the glass substrate (i.e. a first protective layer), which is the first layer of the sequence starting from the surface of the glass substrate (i.e. disposed on the inner surface and located between the inner surface and the metal absorption layer, as outlined above) (p. 5). The barrier layer is silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride (p. 5) (i.e. an oxide with nitrogen of Si or a nitride of Si of an oxynitride of Si).
Claim 4: AGP teaches the Nb2O5 layer (i.e. the high refractive index layer) as having example thickness of 33 nm (p. 15 and 16) and the SiO2 layer (i.e. the low refractive index layer) as having example thickness of 48 nm (p. 15 and 16). Both of these thicknesses lie within (i.e. overlap) the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 5: AGP teaches the solar protection function is enabled by the absorbent layer and an infrared (IR) reflective layer (i.e. a low-emissivity layer), which is listed sequentially between the barrier layer (i.e. the first protective layer) and the absorbent layer (i.e. the metal absorption layer) (p. 5). The IR reflective layer is indium tin oxide (ITO) (p. 5).
Claim 6: AGP teaches that the coating stack may include a thin protective nitride-based layer, preferably silicon nitride, on top of the absorptive metal layer to protect against oxidation (p. 5). Placing a protective silicon nitride layer (i.e. a barrier layer) between the absorptive metal layer and the low-emissivity layer would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a simple rearrangement of parts (i.e. the silicon nitride layer between the absorptive metal layer and the low-emissivity layer instead of on top of the absorptive metal layer) or as a duplication of parts (i.e. a silicon nitride layer in both of these locations) as a matter of design choice absent an objective showing of unexpected results. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B and C).
Claim 7: AGP teaches the coating may be applied to surface four of the inner glass layer of a laminate (p. 10), wherein the laminate includes two layers of glass, an inner glass and an outer glass, that are permanently bonded together by a plastic bonding layer (i.e. an interlayer disposed between the outer glass and inner glass) and having substantially identical identified first through fourth surfaces (p. 9).
Claim 10: AGP teaches that the light transmission (Tvis; i.e. visible-light transmittance) is less than 60%, the film side reflection (Rf; i.e. visible light reflectivity measured from the inner surface) is less than 6%, and the film side neutral color (i.e. reflected color measured from the inner surface) has -5< Rf-a* <0 (i.e. a value of a range ranging from -5 to 0 in a color space Lab) and -5< Rf-b* <0 (i.e. a value of b ranging from -5 to 0 in a color space Lab) (p. 15). These ranges overlap the instantly claimed ranges. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that AGP teaches that an obscuration of black enamel frit can be applied to the glass (i.e. to the sunroof) (p. 10) and it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that obscuration would further reduce the visible light transmission.
Claims 11-12: AGP teaches that the glass (i.e. the outer glass and inner glass) refers to a nonorganic transparent glass (i.e. which would be understood in the art to have a high visible light transmission in order to be considered transparent) but may have an obscuration of black enamel frit applied to the glass (i.e. understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to reduce visible light transmission since it is an obscuration) (p. 10). The plastic bonding layer commonly used is PVB which is optically clear one laminated (i.e. understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have a high visible-light transmittance in order to be considered optically clear) (p. 13), and the film within the interlayer may include tint, provide sunshade, color correction, variable light transmission, etc. (p. 14). While not reciting the range of transmittance, this disclosure renders as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the degree of light transmittance of the glass and of the interlayer is variable through design choice by varying the above outlined features, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13: AGP teaches the laminated sunroof structure may have a PDLC or SPD film laminated between the glass and PVB (shown as being between layers of PVB which are between the inner glass and outer glass and therefore is disposed between the second surface and the third surface). The teaching of a PDLC or SPD is considered to teach a dimming element/film of these types.
Claim 20: AGP teaches a solar control glazing having at least one glass substrate with a coating stack (p. 5), wherein a laminated sunroof is embodied and the lamination is indicated to be on an inner surface due to being on an inner glass on a surface away from an outer glass (p. 16). AGP teaches that panoramic glass roofs (i.e. sunroofs) have become a popular option on many models (of vehicles) (p. 1), wherein a panoramic roof is a vehicle roof glazing that is a substantial area of the roof over at least a portion of both the front and rear seating areas of the vehicle (i.e. a vehicle comprising a vehicle body and sunroof glass) (p. 9). It would be understood by one or ordinary skill in the art that the sunroof glass is connected to the vehicle body so that it does not fall into the seating areas of the vehicle. Other limitations of instant claim 20 are recited in instant claim 1, which is outlined above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGP America S.A. (WO 2021/105959, previously cited; “AGP”) as evidenced by Fleury et al. (US 2007/0188871; “Fleury”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cid Aguilar (EP 356700, previously cited; “Aguilar”).
Claim 3: The teachings of AGP regarding claim 1 are outlined above. AGP teaches a solar control glazing having at least one glass substrate with a coating stack (p. 5), wherein a laminated sunroof is embodied and the lamination is indicated to be on an inner surface due to being on an inner glass on a surface away from an outer glass (p. 16). However, AGP does not teach the instantly claimed second protective layer on a surface of the anti-reflective layer (i.e. the HLHL layer) away from the metal absorption layer.
In a related field of endeavor, Aguilar teaches laminated glazing systems for automotive and other applications as glasses with low emissivity properties that provide solar control characteristics (paragraphs 0001-0003). The low emissivity coating includes a layer of Ni-Cr alloy (paragraph 0034) and further includes anti-reflective dielectric material layers (paragraphs 0035-0036). A dielectric material is placed as a protective layer (26) (paragraph 0036). The protective layer (26) is depicted by Aguilar in Fig. 1 as an outermost layer, on a surface of the anti-reflective layer away from the glass substrate, which would be away from the metal absorption layer based on the solar control glazing outlined above regarding claim 1. This protective layer provides mechanical stability, thermal stability, chemical durability, and scratch resistance to the entire coating and may be Si3N4 (i.e. a nitride of Si) with a thickness between 10 and 50 nm (paragraph 0036). This thickness overlaps the instantly claimed thickness, and the courts have held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists claimed ranges overlap, lie inside of, or are close to ranges in the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.05. It is noted that as of the writing of this Office Action, no demonstration of a criticality to the claimed ranges has been presented.
As AGP and Aguilar both teach laminates for automotive/vehicle applications, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sunroof solar control glazing of AGP to include a protective layer as taught by Aguilar because this is known to provides mechanical stability, thermal stability, chemical durability, and scratch resistance to the entire coating, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGP America S.A. (WO 2021/105959, previously cited; “AGP”) as evidenced by Fleury et al. (US 2007/0188871; “Fleury”) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Thiel (US 2009/0011205, previously cited; “Thiel”).
Claim 8: The teachings of AGP regarding claim 7 are outlined above. AGP teaches that the interlayer (i.e. applied to the second and third surfaces to bond the glass substrates together, as outlined above) may be of a type which has solar attenuating properties (p. 14). However, AGP does not teach the materials for obtaining the solar attenuating properties.
In a related field of endeavor, Thiel teaches a vehicle transparency, such as for sunroofs, having improved solar performance (paragraphs 0003-0005). The solar control coating is deposited over, for example, the inner surface of the outboard glass ply or the outer surface of the inner glass ply (paragraph 0028). The solar control coating includes one or more infrared reflective metallic films (i.e. metallic functional layers) positioned between pairs of dielectric layers (paragraph 0029) (i.e. at least one infrared reflecting layer each being at least one metallic functional layer and a plurality of dielectric layers).
As AGP teaches that a solar attenuating interlayer may be between glass substrates of a sunroof and Thiel teaches a solar control coating applied to inner surfaces of glass plies (i.e. between glass substrates) for a sunroof, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the sunroof glass of AGP generally having solar attenuating properties applied between glass substrates to be the solar control coating taught by Thiel as this is considered to be a conventionally known solar attenuating coating applied between glass substrates for a sunroof, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9: Thiel teaches that the coating includes one or more infrared reflective metallic films of a reflective metal such as silver, and may have any desired number of these films such as 1 to 5 (paragraph 0032) (i.e. a single-silver coating, a double-silver coating, a triple-silver coating, a four-silver coating, etc.).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AGP America S.A. (WO 2021/105959, previously cited; “AGP”) as evidenced by Fleury et al. (US 2007/0188871; “Fleury”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buckett et al. (EP 131674, previously cited; “Buckett”).
Claim 14: The teachings of AGP regarding claim 1 are outlined above. AGP teaches a solar control glazing having at least one glass substrate with a coating stack (p. 5), wherein a laminated sunroof is embodied and the lamination is indicated to be on an inner surface due to being on an inner glass on a surface away from an outer glass (p. 16). Automotive glass may be a single layer of glass which has been heat strengthened (i.e. tempered glass) (p. 10) or two layers of glass that are bonded together by a plastic bonding layer (p. 9). The glass may be, among several other named types of glass, common soda-lime glass typical of automotive glazing which is made from sodium carbonate, calcium carbonate, dolomite, silicon dioxide, aluminum oxide, and small quantities of substances added to alter the color (i.e. the glass is tinted) and other properties (p. 11). However, AGP does not teach the recited thickness or total iron content.
In a related field of endeavor, Buckett teaches soda-lime float glass used for glazings in buildings and vehicles (paragraphs 0002-0003). The composition of the glass includes 0-2% Fe2O3 (table below paragraph 0010 and table below paragraph 0019), which may be a thermally toughened glass (i.e. tempered glass) (paragraph 0018), and colorants may be added (i.e. tinted glass) (paragraph 0024). Glass samples were 4 mm thick (paragraph 0039). However, Buckett also teaches that glass can be of medium thickness or can be made thinner or thicker (paragraphs 0034-0036), and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the thickness is not particularly limiting because other thicknesses are possible. The thickness then is a matter of size/proportion as a design choice and is not patentably distinct from the prior art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
As AGP and Buckett both teach glass glazings for vehicles/automotive applications, they are analogous. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the soda-lime glass substrate of AGP to include specifically the composition and variability of thickness of the glass as taught by Buckett because this is considered a simple substitution of one known element for another known element for the same purpose, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is the disclosure of AGP as outlined above. However, the solar control glazing of AGP includes an IR reflective layer (i.e. a low-emissivity layer). Other cited prior art that includes a NiCr or other metallic absorbent layer likewise includes at least one IR reflective layer of metal or transparent conductive oxide. As such, there does not appear to be a motivation in the prior art to provide a metallic absorbent layer without a low-emissivity layer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 7-10, filed 12 January 2026, with respect to the prior art rejections based primarily on the disclosure of Aguilar, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of AGP and supporting/modifying references as outlined above.
It is noted that the prior art of Aguilar, cited above for a protective layer as recited in instant claim 3, is not cited regarding any of the reasons specifically argued by Applicant in the remarks filed 12 January 2026.
It is noted that Applicant’s arguments, see p. 10-11, are directed to differences in functional purpose of the metal absorption layer. However, the argued functions are not recited in the claims and the claims are directed to a product, whereas a substantially identically material is considered to have substantially identical properties and functions. See MPEP § 2112.01(I).
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 KIM S HORGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
/KIM S. HORGER/Examiner, Art Unit 1784