DETAILED ACTION
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidler, US 2020/0262185 A1.
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Seidler teaches a composite glazing (Fig. 3) comprising a first and second transparent substrate (102 and 203 of Fig. 3) with an interlayer therebetween, said interlayer comprising a polymer resin ([0017], [0037]), a thickness ([0024]), and two sets of visible, light-reflecting bodies (302 and 303 of Fig. 3) arranged in two parallel layers on films 112 and 113 of Fig. 3, resulting in the light-reflecting bodies being in two different planes that are substantially parallel.
The teachings of Seidler differ from the present invention in that Seidler does not teach that the first arrangement is offset from the second arrangement. It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to offset the first arrangement from the second arrangement because Seidler does not teach that the two arrangements are to be aligned, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the two arrangements of patterns 302 and 303 would almost certainly not end up in alignment unless care was deliberately taken to align the patterns during the manufacturing process. As Seidler does not teach aligning the patterns of layers 302 and 303 during manufacture, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the patterns to not be aligned and therefore be offset from each other. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the two reflecting layers in the product of Seidler in whatever manner was necessary to achieve the desired spatial or optical effect, based on the intended appearance of the product and the specific effect desired, because Seidler teaches that the patterned layers are intended to achieve optical effects. Additionally, as Applicant’s specification discloses no technical effect that is achieved by the claimed offsets and is silent as to why such offsets would be beneficial or necessary, the claimed offset patterns appear to be arbitrary and thus cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 10-12, Seidler teaches that the light-reflecting bodies on each layer may be arranged in a rectangular grid pattern ([0119], [0123]).
Regarding claims 5-8 and 13-16, Seidler teaches a glazing with an interlayer as discussed above. The teachings of Seidler differ from the present invention in that although Seidler teaches that the two patterned layers of light-reflecting bodies may be arranged to achieve spatial or optical effects ([0091]), Seidler does not teach any specific relative arrangement of the patterns (ie, does not teach whether the patterns are offset linearly or angularly). It would, however, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange to two reflecting layers in the product of Seidler in whatever manner was necessary to achieve the desired spatial or optical effect, based on the intended appearance of the product and the specific effect desired.
Regarding claim 17, Seidler teaches a method for forming the laminate composite glazing, the method comprising (a) providing a first and second interlayer component sheet (3001 and 3002 of Fig. 3), each interlayer component sheet comprising a substrate (112 and 113 of Fig. 3) and a plurality of visible, light-reflecting bodies (302 and 303 of Fig. 3), (b) assembling the first and second interlayer component sheets to form a multilayer interlayer precursor ([0091]), (c) assembling the laminated composite glazing precursors with the multilayer interlayer precursors therebetween (Fig. 3), and (d) subjecting the glazing precursor to laminating conditions to form a composite glazing ([0095]).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Seidler teaches the presence of various other sheets (e.g. 212, 202 of Fig. 3) positioned between the first and second interlayer component sheets, any of which may be regarded as corresponding to the claimed “optional interlayer component sheet” of claim 18 or the “spacer” sheet of claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-06-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the teachings of Seidler, Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to offset the pattern of Seidler in the claimed manner. This is unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Additionally, as Applicant’s specification discloses no technical effect that is achieved by the claimed patterns or offsets and is silent as to why such offsets would be beneficial or necessary, the claimed offset patterns appear to be arbitrary and thus cannot distinguish the claimed invention from that of the prior art.
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 Ian A Rummel whose telephone number is (571)270-5692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday and alternating Fridays, 8:30-5:00.
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.
IAN A. RUMMEL
Examiner
Art Unit 1785
/IAN A RUMMEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights