DETAILED ACTION
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 Species I (claims 3-6 and 15-18), Species III (claim 4) and Species V (claim 7) in the reply filed on 04/09/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 8-11 and 17-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/09/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/16/2025 is considered and signed IDS form is attached.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 5 recites “the first and second optically transparent sheets”, which should be “the first optically transparent sheet and the second optically transparent sheet”. Appropriate correction 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.
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 1-4, 6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrot et al. (US 2012/0068083 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6, 15 and 16, Labrot et al. disclose a windshield (laminate) comprising a glass sheet 2 (first optically transparent sheet), an interlayer foil 3 and a glass sheet 9 (second optically transparent sheet) (see Figure 1 and paragraph 0038). The interlayer foil is made from thermoplastic such as PVB, PU or EVA (see paragraph 0038). The interlayer foil can be a multilayer thermoplastic foil comprising PVB/PET/PVB (see paragraph 0038). While Labrot et al. do not disclose a multilayer thermoplastic foil comprising PU/PET/PU, given that Labrot et al. disclose interchangeability and equivalency of PVB and PU, and therefore Labrot et al. disclose a multilayer thermoplastic foil comprising PU/PET/PU. Further, given that the multilayer thermoplastic foil is “thermoplastic”, PU is thermoplastic PU (thermoplastic urethane). The PU layers read on polymeric layers and PET reads on a structural support layer interposed between PU layers.
Further, Labrot et al. disclose that the PVB layer contains luminophore (see paragraphs 0046 and 0058). As noted above, given that Labrot et al. disclose interchangeability and equivalency of PVB and PU, PU layer will also contain luminophore. That is, Labrot et al. disclose the multilayer thermoplastic foil comprising thermoplastic PU containing luminophore (first polymeric layer)/PET (structural support layer)/thermoplastic PU containing luminophore (second polymeric layer). Given that there is no disclosure of plasticizer in PVB layer (or PU layer) or PET layer, the multilayer thermoplastic foil (interlayer) is free of plasticizers.
Regarding claim 14, Labrot et al. disclose the laminate has a haze of less than 2% and a light transmission of greater than 70% (see paragraphs 0051 and 0052).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labrot et al. (US 2012/0068083 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Parrinello et al. (5,166,383) and taken in view of evidence by Patton et al. (WO 2006/014424 A2).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Labrot et al. disclose the laminate as set forth above. The polymeric layers (first polymeric layer and second polymeric layer) contain a luminophore as noted above. Further, Labrot et al. disclose the lumiophore includes “hydroxyterephthalate” compound (see paragraphs 0019, 0024). As evidenced by Patton et al., “hydroxyterephthalate” is a fluorophore (see paragraph 0083, lines 7-8).
Labrot et al. do not disclose the polymeric layers comprising an adhesion promoter.
Parrinello et al. disclose polyurethane resin containing an adhesion promoter, wherein the adhesion promoter is using in coatings (see col. 1, lines 5-9). The adhesion promoter provides a significant increase in the adhesion to glass (see col. 1, lines 35-40 and col. 30, Table 1).
In light of motivation for using an adhesion promoter disclosed by Parrinello et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adhesion promoter of Parrinello et al. in the first polymeric layer comprising polyurethane and the second polymeric layer comprising polyurethane in Labrot et al. in order to increase adhesion of the first polymeric layer to the first optically transparent sheet (i.e. glass sheet) and increase adhesion of the second polymeric layer to the second optically transparent sheet (i.e. glass sheet), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerke et al. (WO 2018/141742 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 7, Gerke et al. disclose a laminated glazing comprising a first optically transparent layer 1 made of glass, a luminous coating 12 (first polymeric layer), an interlayer 11 (structural support layer) and a second optically transparent layer 2 made of glass (see Abstract, Figure 1, page 3, lines 21-23 and lines 39-42, page 26, lines 5-13). A functional layer (C) comprising the luminous coating 12 and the interlayer 11 reads on an interlayer disposed between the first optically transparent layer and the second optically transparent layer as presently claimed.
The luminous coating (first polymeric layer) comprises a matrix and a luminophore, wherein the matrix can be thermoplastic polyurethane and the luminophore can be quantum dot (see page 9, lines 1-2 and line 38 and page 14, lines 1-7). Given that the plasticizers are optional, the luminous coating is free of plasticizer (see page 9, lines 10-12).
The interlayer 11 (structural support layer) comprises an ionomeric polymer (see pages 5-6, 36-7). Given that there is no disclosure of plasticizers in the interlayer 11, the interlayer 11 is free of plasticizer. Accordingly, given that the luminous coating (first polymeric layer) and the interlayer 11 (structural support layer) are free of plasticizer, the functional layer (C) (i.e. claimed interlayer) is free of plasticizers.
Regarding claim 3, Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing as set forth above. Further, Gerke et al. disclose that the functional interlayer can comprise two or more layers, wherein each layer can be made of different material (see page 7, lines 35-39). The functional layer can be made of ionomers, thermoplastic polyurethane, etc. (see page 5, lines 36-42). Given that the functional layer can be made of ionomers, thermoplastic polyurethane, etc. and given that the functional layer can comprise two layers made of different material, the functional layer can be a laminate (interlayer 11) of layer comprising the ionomeric polymer (structural support layer) and a layer comprising thermoplastic polyurethane (second polymeric layer). An outer surface of the laminate comprises the luminous coating (first polymeric layer) (see page 7, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 14, Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing as set forth above. The luminous coating (first polymeric layer) contains quantum dot as a luminophore as noted above. Further, Gerke et al. discloses quantum dots include inorganic quantum dots based on CdSe, CdTe, etc. or mixtures there of (see page 14, lines 4-5), which are similar to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0020 of present specification). Gerke et al. disclose that the luminophore has quantum yield of 50% to 100% (see page 12, 22-24).
Given that Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing (laminate) identical to that presently claimed and given that luminophore present in the laminated glazing is similar to that utilized in the present invention and luminophore has quantum yield of 50% to 100%, the laminated glazing of Gerke et al. will necessarily inherently meet quantum yield as presently claimed.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerke et al. (WO 2018/141742 A1 cited in IDS) as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Parrinello et al. (5,166,383).
Regarding claims 12 and 13 Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing as set forth above. The luminous coating (first polymeric layer) contains quantum dot as a luminophore as noted above.
Gerke et al. do not disclose the luminous coating (first polymeric layer) comprising an adhesion promoter.
Parrinello et al. disclose polyurethane resin containing an adhesion promoter, wherein the adhesion promoter is using in coatings (see col. 1, lines 5-9). The adhesion promoter provides a significant increase in the adhesion to glass (see col. 1, lines 35-40 and col. 30, Table 1).
In light of motivation for using an adhesion promoter disclosed by Parrinello et al. as described above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an adhesion promoter of Parrinello et al. in the luminous coating (the first polymeric layer) comprising polyurethane in Gerke et al. in order to increase adhesion of the luminous coating (the first polymeric layer) to the first optically transparent sheet (i.e. glass sheet), and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerke et al. (WO 2018/141742 A1 cited in IDS).
Regarding claims 1-3, 6 and 15, Gerke et al. disclose a laminated glazing comprising a first optically transparent layer 1 made of glass, a luminous coating 12 (first polymeric layer), an interlayer 11 (structural support layer) and a second optically transparent layer 2 made of glass (see Abstract, Figure 1, page 3, lines 21-23 and lines 39-42, page 26, lines 5-13). A functional layer (C) comprising the luminous coating 12 and the interlayer 11 reads on an interlayer disposed between the first optically transparent layer and the second optically transparent layer as presently claimed.
The luminous coating (first polymeric layer) comprises a matrix and a luminophore, wherein the matrix can be thermoplastic polyurethane and the luminophore can be quantum dot (see page 9, lines 1-2 and line 38 and page 14, lines 1-7). Given that the plasticizers are optional, the luminous coating is free of plasticizer (see page 9, lines 10-12).
Further, Gerke et al. disclose that the functional interlayer can comprise two or more layers, wherein each layer can be made of same material (see page 7, lines 35-39). The functional layer can be made of thermoplastic polyurethane (see page 5, lines 36-42). Given that the functional layer can be made of thermoplastic polyurethane and given that the functional layer can comprise two layers made of same material, the functional layer can be a laminate (interlayer 11) of a layer comprising the thermoplastic polyurethane (structural support layer) and a layer comprising thermoplastic polyurethane (second polymeric layer). An outer surface of the laminate comprises the luminous coating (first polymeric layer) (see page 7, lines 41-43). Given that there is no disclosure of plasticizers in the interlayer 11, the interlayer 11 is free of plasticizer. Accordingly, given that the luminous coating (first polymeric layer) and the interlayer 11 (structural support layer and second polymeric layer) are free of plasticizer, the functional layer (C) (i.e. claimed interlayer) is free of plasticizers.
Accordingly, Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing comprising the luminous coating made of thermoplastic polyurethane and luminophore (first polymeric layer), a layer made of thermoplastic polyurethane (structural support layer) and a layer made of thermoplastic polyurethane (second polymeric layer). These layers together read on the interlayer interposed between the first optically transparent sheet and the second optically transparent sheet as presently claimed, wherein the structural support layer is interposed between the first polymeric layer and the second polymeric layer.
Regarding claim 14, Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing as set forth above. The luminous coating (first polymeric layer) contains quantum dot as a luminophore as noted above. Further, Gerke et al. discloses quantum dots include inorganic quantum dots based on CdSe, CdTe, etc. or mixtures there of (see page 14, lines 4-5), which are similar to that utilized in the present invention (see paragraph 0020 of present specification). Gerke et al. disclose that the luminophore has quantum yield of 50% to 100% (see page 12, 22-24).
Given that Gerke et al. disclose the laminated glazing (laminate) identical to that presently claimed and given that luminophore present in the laminated glazing is similar to that utilized in the present invention and luminophore has quantum yield of 50% to 100%, the laminated glazing of Gerke et al. will necessarily inherently meet quantum yield as presently claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRUPA SHUKLA whose telephone number is (571)272-5384. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:00 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, 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.
/KRUPA SHUKLA/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights