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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, 12 and 16-20, in the reply filed on June 15, 2026, is acknowledged. Claims 9-11 and 13-15 are withdrawn for being directed to a nonelected invention. The restriction requirement is deemed proper and made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8, 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “Bm/Am is between 0.3 and 2 or even 1.5.” It is unclear what “even 1.5” is intended to require. Is Bm/Am preferably 1.5? Or between 0.3 and 1.5? It is further unclear if “even 1.5” is intended to limit the claim, or simply express a favored value. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that Bm/Am between 0.3 and 2 will satisfy the claim. Claims 2-8, 12 and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “at most 5%”, and the claim also recites “or 1%... and even as low as 0%,” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted such that any amount up to 5% will satisfy the claim. Claim 18 is rejected for being dependent on claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 does not further limit claim 2. Claim 2 requires light transmission of at least 70%, and claim 16 requires the same limitation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-8, 12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/020774 Rufino et al.
Regarding claim 1, Rufino teaches an enameled substrate (paragraph 0002) including
a first glass sheet (paragraph 0010) including, on a first main face (paragraph 0010),
a scattering layer (paragraph 0012, diffusing) made of scattering enamel, including a vitreous matrix (paragraph 0011),
the scattering layer including at least a first pattern having a width of at least 30 mm (3 cm) and a surface S0 (top surface, paragraph 0010),
the first scattering pattern including a set of separate micropads of said scattering enamel (paragraph 0012, where the bubble scatter light),
wherein, by defining within the first scattering pattern an analysis surface area S1 (0.25 m2, paragraph 0036), and a surface area S2 which is the a sum of the surface areas of the micropads in the surface area S1 (20% = 0.05 m2, paragraph 0037);
the first scattering pattern is defined by an equivalent mean diameter Am of the micropads of 0.8 to 10 microns (paragraph 0046-0047);
the first scattering pattern is defined by an average distance Bm between neighboring micropads (about 5 to about 20 microns, figures 1a-1g) and Bm/Am is 2 to 25,
the scattering layer including scattering particles and/or microcrystals of the glassy matrix which is glass-crystalline (paragraph 0013, teaching including crystals of 0.2 microns in size).
Rufino does not explicitly teach S0, and teaches that S1 is 0.5 m x 0.5 m. However, the method of measuring the claimed surface area of the micropads is not considered to structurally limit the claim. Note that Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed method of measuring surface area results in a structural difference between Applicant’s enameled substrate and the taught substrate; see MPEP 2113. As such, Rufino is considered to render obvious the claimed surface area regardless of the measuring technique.
“In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught Am of 0.8 to 10 microns reads on the claimed Am of 1 to 10 microns, and the taught Bm/Am of 2 to 25 reads on the claimed Bm/Am of 0.3 to 2.
Regarding claims 2, 16 and 17, Rufino teaches that the first glass sheet with the scattering layer has a light transmission factor of at least 75% (paragraph 0015), and a haze of 1-30% (paragraph 0016, where the blur is the haze).
Regarding claim 3, Rufino teaches that that glassy matrix includes a vitreous binder, and the binder is based on bismuth or zinc borosilicate (paragraph 0011).
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Rufino teaches that the scattering layer includes a weight content of coloring additives, including pigments, of 0-10% of the total weight of the enamel (paragraph 0013). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 0 to 10% reads on the claimed range of at most 5%.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Rufino teaches that the average distance Bm is about 5 to about 20 microns (figure 1a-1g, where “about 5” includes just less than 5). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of about 5 to about 20 microns reads on the claimed range of 1 to 5 microns.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Rufino teaches that Tim is 1-20% (paragraph 0037). “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” (MPEP 2144.05 Section I). Therefore, absent evidence of criticality, the taught range of 1-20% reads on the claimed range of 5-50%.
Regarding claim 7, Rufino teaches that the glassy matrix is glass-crystalline, including the microcrystals in a vitreous binder (paragraph 0104), and the scattering layer includes a content by weight of scattering particles separate from microcrystals by 0-1% of a total weight of the enamel (paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 8, Rufino teaches a light source which is coupled to the first glass sheet (paragraph 0025) forming a light guide (paragraph 0185).
Regarding claim 12, Rufino teaches that the enameled substrate forms a glazed unit for a land, water or aerial vehicle (paragraph 0172, windscreen) and is a curved laminated windshield (paragraph 0176 teaching curvature), the first glass sheet is the internal glazing (paragraph 0010 teaching that the first glass sheet is the enameled substrate, and paragraphs 0163-0168 teaching formation of a glazing).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Megha M Gaitonde whose telephone number is (571)270-3598. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am to 5 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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/MEGHA M GAITONDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights