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
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hofberger USPA_20170001423_A1 in view of Gerard EP_2986451_A2.
Regarding Claims 1, 4, 13, Hofberger discloses a layer composite comprising a substrate, followed by an adhesive layer, and then a cover layer (paragraph 0001). Hofberger further discloses that said adhesive layer can be a cured adhesive by radiation (paragraphs 0032, 0058). Hofberger says said cover layer can be a glass that is preferably transparent (paragraph 0071), which would be expected to have a light transmittance of greater than 50%.
Hofberger does not disclose the claimed polymer layer.
Gerard discloses a transparent layer composite, comprising two outer glass layers (corresponding to substrate and cover layer) and an inner polymer layer (corresponds to polymer layer), which is connected by means of adhesive layers (corresponds to adhesive layers therebetween) and for which said polymers are cited such as polycarbonate or PET (corresponds to claimed PC and polyester, respectively of instant Claims 4 and 13), the tensile strengths of which are above 30 MPa as is well known in the art, and it being possible for the adhesive layer to be a radiation-hardening adhesive (§ [0040]- [0042]; figures 1 and 2). Moreover, Gerard discloses that said polymer layer can be specifically used to strengthen the layered composite (paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the layered composite, of Hofberger, by trying the use of the inner polymer layer, of Gerard. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in doing so in order to obtain strength.
Regarding Claims 2, 3, Hofberger in view of Gerard suggests using two-component adhesives such as epoxy and polyurethane resins, and radiation curable adhesives such as (meth)acrylates and urethane(meth)acrylates (Hofberger: paragraph 0060), it would be expected for it to have the same physical properties as the acryl-based and urethane-based cured adhesives mentioned in Applicants’ specification. This would extend to physical properties such as elongation at break and tensile strength.
Regarding Claims 5, 14, Hofberger in view of Gerard does not suggest any recesses in its polymer layer.
Regarding Claim 6, although Hofberger in view of Gerard does not suggest this, it would be expected for this to be a simple matter of structural design based on end-user product specifications.
Regarding Claims 7, 15, Hofberger in view of Gerard does not mandate post cross-linking.
Regarding Claim 8, Hofberger in view of Gerard suggests its inner polymer layer can have a thickness ranging from 0.1 to 5 mm (Gerard: paragraph 0092).
Regarding Claim 9, Hofberger in view of Gerard suggests all of the method limitations (Hofberger: Claim 1).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Hofberger in view of Gerard suggests bonding said layers at room temperature (Gerard: paragraph 0060).
Regarding Claim 12, given that Hofberger in view of Gerard suggests the same materials, it would be expected for it to have the same viscosity as being claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights