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 .
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaussade et al. (US 2008/0318011 A1) in view of Tondu et al. (US 2020/0384737 A1)(Tondu) and Leconte (US 2009/0233121 A1).
As to claims 1, 14 and 15, Chaussade teaches a laminate glazing for use in an aircraft cockpit. See paragraph [0004]. Chassaude teaches the following structure as it relates to claim 1:
Claim 1 element
Corresponding Chausade element shown in Figure 1.
First chemically strengthened glass substrate
Pane A; sheet 5
Heating coating on face 2 or 3
Electroconductive film 11
First polymer interlayer
Interlayer 6
Solar control coating on remaining face 2 or 3
Solar protection film applied to pane B (paragraphs [0004] and [0035])
Second chemically strengthened substrate
Pane B; sheet 3
Optional second polymer interlayer
Interlayer 4
Optional third chemically strengthen glass substrate
Pane C; sheet 2
The interlayers are thermoplastic polymers such as TPU or PVB. See paragraph [0043]. Pane A/Sheet 5 is chemically strengthened. See paragraph [0045]. Pane B/sheet 3 is also chemically strengthened. See paragraph [0007].
Chaussade differs from claim 1 in two ways.
First, Chaussade fails to disclose pane C /sheet 2 is chemically strengthened.
Tondu teaches aeronautical glazings comprising three ion exchange strengthened glass sheets. See paragraphs [0037] and [0041].
Therefore, it would been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used a chemically strengthened glass as the glass of pane C/sheet 2 in Chaussade. The rationale for doing so is selecting a known material (i.e., a chemically strengthened glass) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose (i.e., as a cabin facing glass sheet). See MPEP 2144.07.
Second, Chassaude teaches that a solar control functional coating may be applied to surface 3 (see paragraphs [0004] and [0035]), but Chaussaude fails to disclose the solar control coating comprises “at least one functional silver-based metal layer and at least two dielectric coatings, each dielectric coating comprising at least one dielectric layer, such that each functional silver-based metal layer is arranged between two dielectric coatings.”
Leconte teaches a laminated glazing including a solar radiation reflective layer containing silver layers sandwiched between ZnO dielectric layers. See paragraphs [0025] –[0031] and [0047]-[0049].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have employed the solar radiation reflective layer stack of Leconte as the solar control functional film of Chassaude. The rationale for doing so is that the coating system of Laconte has a high light transmission and is solar radiation and infrared reflective. See the abstract.
As to claims 2 and 3, Leconte teaches n+1 silver layers, where n ≥ 1. See paragraphs [0026]-[0031].
As to claim 4, Leconte teaches the solar control coating allows light to pass while blocking solar radiation. See the abstract. Thus, the property of instant claim 4 flow from the teachings of the prior art. See MPEP 716.02(f).
As to claim 5, Leconte teaches the Si3N4 layers (1) and (2) may be omitted which results in all of the dielectric layers being an oxide. See paragraphs [0046]-[0050].
As to claims 6 and 7, Chassaude teaches the electroconductive layer 11 may be indium tin oxide having a thickness of 50 to 500 nm. See paragraphs [0051].
As to claim 8, Chassaude discloses the electroconductive layer is separated into zones including thicker bands 12. Chassaude fails to disclose the ratio of thicknesses. However, it has been held to have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to have changed the size of a prior art product. See MPEP 2144.04 IV.
As to claims 9-11, Chassaude teaches the interlayers are formed from thermoplastic polyurethane or polyvinyl butyral. See paragraph [0004] and [0043]-[0044].
As to claim 12, Tondo teaches the outer facing intrerlayer has a thickness of 3 and 12 mm and the inner facing interlayer has a thickness of 0.5 to 5 mm. See paragraphs [0028] and [0032].
As to claim 13, Chassaude teaches the thickness of pane A/sheet 5 is 3 mm and pane B sheet 6 is 5 or 6 mm. See paragraph [0004].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 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, 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights